thinkprogress.org— A video compilation of administration officials asserting an Iraq/Al Qaeda link. The clips are from the days after a Senate Intelligence Committee report refuted the connection.
Sep 21, 2006View in Crawl 4
The thing I find ironic is the same people that bitch and moan when a blog links is put on digg and the ones submitting and digging stories from thinkrpogress, a liberal blog.Typical liberal hypocrits.Go ahead, digg the comment down, you know you will.
See, as a technology site this site attracts people of above-average intelligence with an strong aptitude for logical thinking so you get a different bias than you would at say a theological web site.
raped? Umm, sure. I don't suppose anyone has any proof of that?Don't get me wrong, Clinton clearly wasn't faithful to Hillary but raped? Was that the women who claimed to be his number one fan (after the "attack") or the women who brought the allegation decades later?Anyway, there is no doubt that getting a BJ is far worse than starting a false war that kills 10's of thousands, costs 100's of billions, increases terror world-wide, and destroys US credibility. Yep, no doubt about it.
************ ABUSE ALERT ************The user above, diaboiickungfu (to you it looks like diabolickungfu), is impersonating a genuine user, Diabolickungfu. This impostor has impersonated other genuine Digg users as well. This impostor is breaking Digg's Terms of Use Agreement, Section 3.1 : <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tos">http://digg.com/tos</a> .Please report this user by emailing this imposter's user name (please copy and paste for complete accuracy) and the URL of this thread to abuse@digg.com, and state in the email what you yourself see as the violation.If you see yourself being impersonated in a similar fashion, report it immediately to abuse@digg.com with all pertinent details.People who intentionally break Digg's Terms of Use Agreement will only serve to bring Digg down and lose its popularity among true Digg users. It is important that people like this are reported and stopped.Thank you.
@successrealmMost of those quotes are from before W was even elected. So, you are a moron.by kylesellers Actually MORON, you just shot yourself in the foot by mentioning that...1) Clinton FULLY understood exactly what Bush Sr. and every other engaged person with two braincells shooting synapses at each other understood. That OCCUPYING Iraq, wouldn't work. Didn't work, did it moron? 2) The UN Weapons Inspectors stated that after 1998 Iraq was about NINETY FIVE percent WMD free, and anything left over was pretty much deemed useless due to shelf lives of those items. So theeeeeere goes the validity of those quotes and the "threat" involved. Woooooosh! What was that sound? That was your "threat", being blown away again.Ever been to Iraq? I have. I've been in a war there. Call me when:1) You find your head in your ass and can show us all the "threat". Good luck!2) You've "gotten the T-shirt" and spent a f**king day there.
Why was this story "reported as innacurate"? Their caught red handed on TAPE! What more proof do you people need to realize whats going on? There was little to no terrorism in Iraq before we invaded it, and Saddam was still in power, now its complete chaos in Iraq..to tell you the truth I think it was better when Saddamm was in power, at least then he had to deal with the terrorist instead of us...but the Bush administration needed some kind of excuse to invade Iraq without leaving the impression to the rest of America that they invaded to control the oil resources. Don't swallow everything this administration and FOX news feeds you!
Saddam was, for a long time, a US puppet. A secular suni tyrant - so OBVIOUSLY a radical shia fanaticism would have been regarded as a threat to his government. What happens if you threaten a tyrant's power? Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Islam and the Arab world was calling bulls**t on this "link" since day one -- Iraq and Al Quida would have been enemies. Americans still can't seem to wrap their heads around this. Think of it this way,.. what are the odds that the Bush administration would hook up with the KKK? C'mon they're both Christian aren't they? Discounting differences in the political ideologies simply because they're the same faith (which is debatable, Suni and Shia are different sects of Islam) is just plain stupid - and its sad that the American people don't ask basic questions when fed this crap by their govt.
www.regimeofterror.comTons of links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda.The problem has been tying the links directly to Saddam. It's been long known and accepted that they go to the people right under Saddam though like al Douri and others.Please check the site.
TubbaTechno: "You know the liberal community will be up in arms if ABC or Fox News tries to run a report supporting the president even if they use a quote from Bush "there was no connection to 9/11"..."Actually, if Bush's public admission of no connection between Hussein and alQaeda was followed by Fox News wailing and gnashing their teeth in their coverage, this member of the liberal community would be happy to sit back, smile, and enjoy it.
I appreciate the rhetorical middle ground that you and josho have achieved, bcismar. It's a refreshing relief in the high noise-to-signal ratio of the general Internet. However, you have yet to answer josho's initial inquiry: what is your source for this criticism?Given this lack of proximate citation, I'll assume you're referring to Clinton's 1998 cruise missile strike on the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum. Clinton ordered the strike as retaliation to the alQaeda-credited simultaneous bombing of two U.S. embassies on August 7 of the same year. Bombings in which 257 people were killed and over 4,000 were wounded.It seems to me that evoking such a specific tragedy -- 1 person was indeed killed and 10 were injured despite the complete decimation of the structure -- is simply another argument against using intelligence to act unilaterally in the shadow of tremendous security breaches and loss of life. A unilateral action which Bush had evidently taken in 2003 and is now looking to justify ex-post-facto.Just a couple sources:<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings</a><a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory</a><a class="user" href="http://www.flonnet.com/fl2222/stories/20051104000905900.htm">http://www.flonnet.com/fl2222/stories/20051104000905900.htm</a>I have yet to see Saddam Hussein or Iraq mentioned in any of the articles I've read about the misinformed strike or the August 7 bombings.BTW, bcismar, Watch "Bowling for Columbine" sometime. Michael Moore agrees with you that the Al Shifa strike was a mistake on Clinton's part. So please, watch where you throw the "hypocrisy" word. One digger's "hypocrisy" may be another digger's "subtlety."
I must agree with Horseshoe. IIS recieves many documents, some which get substantiated, some which don't. The quote of the IIS document "Captain's Quarters" is referring to seems remarkably sparse... and indirect.BTW: it seems the original PDF has been moved or gone missing completely.
Closed AccountSep 21, 2006
The thing I find ironic is the same people that bitch and moan when a blog links is put on digg and the ones submitting and digging stories from thinkrpogress, a liberal blog.Typical liberal hypocrits.Go ahead, digg the comment down, you know you will.
flag8rSep 21, 2006
See, as a technology site this site attracts people of above-average intelligence with an strong aptitude for logical thinking so you get a different bias than you would at say a theological web site.
webxlSep 21, 2006
Please read (that's R-E-A-D) <a class="user" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html</a>They based everything off of the CIA's assessment.
chall2001Sep 21, 2006
raped? Umm, sure. I don't suppose anyone has any proof of that?Don't get me wrong, Clinton clearly wasn't faithful to Hillary but raped? Was that the women who claimed to be his number one fan (after the "attack") or the women who brought the allegation decades later?Anyway, there is no doubt that getting a BJ is far worse than starting a false war that kills 10's of thousands, costs 100's of billions, increases terror world-wide, and destroys US credibility. Yep, no doubt about it.
reportabuseSep 21, 2006
************ ABUSE ALERT ************The user above, diaboiickungfu (to you it looks like diabolickungfu), is impersonating a genuine user, Diabolickungfu. This impostor has impersonated other genuine Digg users as well. This impostor is breaking Digg's Terms of Use Agreement, Section 3.1 : <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tos">http://digg.com/tos</a> .Please report this user by emailing this imposter's user name (please copy and paste for complete accuracy) and the URL of this thread to abuse@digg.com, and state in the email what you yourself see as the violation.If you see yourself being impersonated in a similar fashion, report it immediately to abuse@digg.com with all pertinent details.People who intentionally break Digg's Terms of Use Agreement will only serve to bring Digg down and lose its popularity among true Digg users. It is important that people like this are reported and stopped.Thank you.
dmoney22Sep 21, 2006
I was wondering the same thing....maybe the Bush admin. has digg accounts.
successrealmSep 21, 2006
@successrealmMost of those quotes are from before W was even elected. So, you are a moron.by kylesellers Actually MORON, you just shot yourself in the foot by mentioning that...1) Clinton FULLY understood exactly what Bush Sr. and every other engaged person with two braincells shooting synapses at each other understood. That OCCUPYING Iraq, wouldn't work. Didn't work, did it moron? 2) The UN Weapons Inspectors stated that after 1998 Iraq was about NINETY FIVE percent WMD free, and anything left over was pretty much deemed useless due to shelf lives of those items. So theeeeeere goes the validity of those quotes and the "threat" involved. Woooooosh! What was that sound? That was your "threat", being blown away again.Ever been to Iraq? I have. I've been in a war there. Call me when:1) You find your head in your ass and can show us all the "threat". Good luck!2) You've "gotten the T-shirt" and spent a f**king day there.
mikey601587Sep 22, 2006
Why was this story "reported as innacurate"? Their caught red handed on TAPE! What more proof do you people need to realize whats going on? There was little to no terrorism in Iraq before we invaded it, and Saddam was still in power, now its complete chaos in Iraq..to tell you the truth I think it was better when Saddamm was in power, at least then he had to deal with the terrorist instead of us...but the Bush administration needed some kind of excuse to invade Iraq without leaving the impression to the rest of America that they invaded to control the oil resources. Don't swallow everything this administration and FOX news feeds you!
trublmakrSep 22, 2006
Saddam was, for a long time, a US puppet. A secular suni tyrant - so OBVIOUSLY a radical shia fanaticism would have been regarded as a threat to his government. What happens if you threaten a tyrant's power? Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Islam and the Arab world was calling bulls**t on this "link" since day one -- Iraq and Al Quida would have been enemies. Americans still can't seem to wrap their heads around this. Think of it this way,.. what are the odds that the Bush administration would hook up with the KKK? C'mon they're both Christian aren't they? Discounting differences in the political ideologies simply because they're the same faith (which is debatable, Suni and Shia are different sects of Islam) is just plain stupid - and its sad that the American people don't ask basic questions when fed this crap by their govt.
ikez78Sep 27, 2006
www.regimeofterror.comTons of links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda.The problem has been tying the links directly to Saddam. It's been long known and accepted that they go to the people right under Saddam though like al Douri and others.Please check the site.
damandohSep 27, 2006
TubbaTechno: "You know the liberal community will be up in arms if ABC or Fox News tries to run a report supporting the president even if they use a quote from Bush "there was no connection to 9/11"..."Actually, if Bush's public admission of no connection between Hussein and alQaeda was followed by Fox News wailing and gnashing their teeth in their coverage, this member of the liberal community would be happy to sit back, smile, and enjoy it.
damandohSep 27, 2006
I appreciate the rhetorical middle ground that you and josho have achieved, bcismar. It's a refreshing relief in the high noise-to-signal ratio of the general Internet. However, you have yet to answer josho's initial inquiry: what is your source for this criticism?Given this lack of proximate citation, I'll assume you're referring to Clinton's 1998 cruise missile strike on the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum. Clinton ordered the strike as retaliation to the alQaeda-credited simultaneous bombing of two U.S. embassies on August 7 of the same year. Bombings in which 257 people were killed and over 4,000 were wounded.It seems to me that evoking such a specific tragedy -- 1 person was indeed killed and 10 were injured despite the complete decimation of the structure -- is simply another argument against using intelligence to act unilaterally in the shadow of tremendous security breaches and loss of life. A unilateral action which Bush had evidently taken in 2003 and is now looking to justify ex-post-facto.Just a couple sources:<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings</a><a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory</a><a class="user" href="http://www.flonnet.com/fl2222/stories/20051104000905900.htm">http://www.flonnet.com/fl2222/stories/20051104000905900.htm</a>I have yet to see Saddam Hussein or Iraq mentioned in any of the articles I've read about the misinformed strike or the August 7 bombings.BTW, bcismar, Watch "Bowling for Columbine" sometime. Michael Moore agrees with you that the Al Shifa strike was a mistake on Clinton's part. So please, watch where you throw the "hypocrisy" word. One digger's "hypocrisy" may be another digger's "subtlety."
damandohSep 27, 2006
I must agree with Horseshoe. IIS recieves many documents, some which get substantiated, some which don't. The quote of the IIS document "Captain's Quarters" is referring to seems remarkably sparse... and indirect.BTW: it seems the original PDF has been moved or gone missing completely.
lobotomyOct 14, 2006
Megadittoes on that comment! <a class="user" href="http://limbaugh.com/?q=Enzyte">http://limbaugh.com/?q=Enzyte</a>