I believe it would be against JU t.o.s. to really say what I believe the military mission needs to be, and just who really should be targetted here to give us all a great victory

Zarqawi was in Iraq two years before the invasion and was identified as a target not long after the invasion.

Mr Zarqawi was identified by America as its main enemy in Iraq shortly after it invaded the country three years ago. Mr Zarqawi succeeded in bringing the al-Qaeda brand to Iraq, making the insurgents a source of inspiration elsewhere.

One reason Mr Zarqawi was successful in Iraq was because he started early. He moved there two years before America invaded, to join a local Islamist group, al-Ansar al-Islam, in order to plot the overthrow of Jordan’s government next door.

Zarqawi was in Afghanistan with Bin Laden after the Soviets retreated (al Qaeda link). Zarqawi then went to Jordan to assassinate its king and was imprisoned for seven years. Upon his release he fled to Iraq.

Please COL, tell me again how Saddam didn't harbor terrorists in general, and al-Qaeda in specific?

Singrdave

I do not doubt that terrorists travel in ALL the Moslem countries but there was NO Al Qaeda activity in Iraq during Saddam’s reign that has been discovered.

Everyone only looks at the Intel that Bush claimed showed Saddam had WMD. Not only was that distorted but the issue of Saddam's military capability, how he would use ANY WMD he had, was ignored. Saddam DID NOT HAVE any ability to attack anyone in March 2003! In addition, as I have pointed out, NO ROUGH DICTATOR EVER attacked a major power; much less the worlds ONLY super power because to do so would be like committing suicide. The evidence is clear, Saddam was NO DANGER to the United States in March 2003 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION for our preemptive invasion! Those mushroom clouds that Bush and Cheney told us about were just like the $5.7 Trillion Surplus Bush used to justify his tax cuts! ALL HOT AIR!!!!!!!

I do not doubt that terrorists travel in ALL the Moslem countries but there was NO Al Qaeda activity in Iraq during Saddam’s reign that has been discovered.

I can't believe you totally ignore everything posted then make a stupid statement like that. There is documented proof that al-qaeda operated in Iraq before the invasion and that Saddam had ties with islamic terrorists. I have posted this countless times.

Everyone only looks at the Intel that Bush claimed showed Saddam had WMD. Not only was that distorted but the issue of Saddam's military capability, how he would use ANY WMD he had, was ignored. Saddam DID NOT HAVE any ability to attack anyone in March 2003! In addition, as I have pointed out, NO ROUGH DICTATOR EVER attacked a major power; much less the worlds ONLY super power because to do so would be like committing suicide. The evidence is clear, Saddam was NO DANGER to the United States in March 2003 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION for our preemptive invasion! Those mushroom clouds that Bush and Cheney told us about were just like the $5.7 Trillion Surplus Bush used to justify his tax cuts! ALL HOT AIR!!!!!!!

More bs that you have already been proved wrong about. Do you understand everyone here laughs at your posts because they are so far out there?

IslandDog

I call you on your BS:

Show us when a Rogue Dictator attacked a major Power?

Show that the information the two CIA Chiefs and Zinni is incorrect?

Show how Bush did not claim there was a $5.7 Trillion Surplus to justify his tax cuts in 2001?

Show the military assessment that showed Saddam had the ability to attack the United States in 2003?

Show where Saddam had the nuclear weapons that he could have used to create the Mushroom Clouds of our cities?

Show us when a Rogue Dictator attacked a major Power?

What does this have to do with anything? This is pure specualtion of what someone MIGHT or MIGHT NOT do. It hold no factual value.

Show that the information the two CIA Chiefs and Zinni is incorrect?

Col, Zinni and the two "chiefs" have not provided any documented facts. It's just their word against the thousands of other people who disagree. I have shown in other posts that you don't respond to that Zinni is affiliated with left wing organizations, and that his track record on terrorism is dismal at best.

Show how Bush did not claim there was a $5.7 Trillion Surplus to justify his tax cuts in 2001?

Col, you have already been proved wrong about the tax cuts. That's why you abandoned that thread, remember?

Show the military assessment that showed Saddam had the ability to attack the United States in 2003?

Do you want me to quote the one's the democrats said?

Show where Saddam had the nuclear weapons that he could have used to create the Mushroom Clouds of our cities?

Here is a quote from a government official....

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Pretty much sums it up.

Tell me again Saddam didn't support terrorists.

Documents from Saddam Hussein's regime that are slowly being translated show Iraq trained thousands of Islamic terrorists at camps inside the country before the war. The evidence – affirmed in interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders – contradicts the claims of anti-war critics who charge Iraq became a magnet for Islamic terrorists only after the U.S. invasion. Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard reports that from 1999 through 2002, "elite Iraqi military units" trained about 8,000 terrorists at three different camps, including Salman Pak, where American forces found an airliner fuselage that possibly was used to practice hijackings. Hayes, who claims more than a dozen corroborating sources, says many of the trainees were from North African-based terrorist groups with ties to al-Qaida. The U.S. has collected more than 2 million documents, audio and videotapes and computer hard drives, but only about 50,000 of these of these items have been examined so far by a skelton crew with limited resources. Along with Salmon Pak, the military units trained terrorists at camps in Samarra and Ramadi who, some intelligence officials believe, are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. Hayes says that according to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005. Later, senior Defense Department officials received the same briefing.

These columns have been documenting this trend for the last couple of years, as well as the revenue tide flowing into state budget coffers. Overall state revenues climbed by 8% in 2004 and nearly 9% in 2005, according to the Census Bureau, and more and more states are piling up big surpluses. We've reported this news because politicians like to disguise these tax windfalls so they can spend it all with impunity and still plead poverty. Journalists contribute to this ruse by focusing their budget coverage on deficits, rather than on the spending and revenue trends that are the actual components of any budget. The current revenue rush also refutes the prevailing Washington consensus that the federal deficit is the result of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, this revenue tsunami is the direct result of the expansion that took off in earnest at about the time the 2003 tax cuts passed. Lower tax rates have since had precisely the result that supporters predicted, though don't look for that story on page one any time...

IskandDog

You have NOT answered a single question in my challenge. You are all HOT AIR. I sight facts and statement of the foremost experts on the subject and you answer with nothing!

There is NO evidence that I have read that linked Saddam to 9/11. There is no assessment he had any military capability to attack our country.

Saddam was an evil dictator that the people of Iraq should have removed from power. It was NOT the responsibility of the United States to do that job. It was also not true that we were in danger from Iraq as Bush and Cheney claimed in 2003. All we have succeeded in doing is allowing the sectarian violence to rear its ugly head in Iraq and I and many others believe there will be a full blown civil war before the country has a stable government. We have provided the example that to prevent being invaded the best thing to do is obtain a few nuclear weapons like North Korea. In that way the U S will not invade for fear of the use of such weapons on our military. If you believe the invasion of Iraq has made this country more secure you are badly mistaken.

You have NOT answered a single question in my challenge. You are all HOT AIR. I sight facts and statement of the foremost experts on the subject and you answer with nothing!

I have answered all your question col. It's you who refuses to see anything but hatred for Bush. Seek help for it.

There is NO evidence that I have read that linked Saddam to 9/11. There is no assessment he had any military capability to attack our country.

This is the number reason everybody here knows you are full of it. Nobody said Saddam had a connection to Sept. 11. Do you understand this simple fact?

Saddam had supported, trained and harbored terrorists, including al-qaeda. Everytime this documented fact is presented to you, you go off with the same "Saddam had no connection to Sept. 11". What a joke you are.

Saddam was an evil dictator that the people of Iraq should have removed from power.

The Iraqi people tried col, that's where many mass graves originated from.

It was also not true that we were in danger from Iraq as Bush and Cheney claimed in 2003.

Democrats claimed the same thing before and after Bush was elected. Tell me again how they were decieved, or will you give them a pass and continue to blame Bush?

Here are a few questions for you that you never answer....


Are you a socialist?

What percentage of income should successful Americans be taxed?

Do you support the democrats efforts to use illegal immigrants as a new voting base?

How many times has your book been on the Amazon top seller list?

Why don't you ever respond to posts that use documented facts to show you are wrong?



I'M CALLING YOU OUT ON YOUR BS.

No

Tax rates in effect in 2000

NO

None

I Do. You ignore both facts and expert opinion

Now it is your turn!

I have already answered your questions. Although I see you can't answer truthfully because you act just like a socialist. I also see you have ignored all the posts I made about the good news from the economy. I see you still ignore the posts Shadowar makes about progress in Iraq.

It's so hillarious when you say I ignore facts and expert opinion. Col, you rarely post documented facts, and we all discredit most of your "experts" just like Zinni. I notice you don't respond to the post I made that shows Zinni as incompetent.

There is GOOD news for the economy but most of that does not impact the Average Worker. You refuse to acknowledge the latest news:

800 point drop in Stock market
Higher interest rates
Reduction in Real Estate Market
Poor American Auto sales
High Energy Costs
Other inflation increases
Drop in Consumer Confidence
Trade Deficit
Continued loss of manufacturing and Tec Jobs

What about ALL that economic news?

While I could go through all your points I will pick a few to show how ignorant you really are.

You refuse to acknowledge the latest news

Just as you refused to acknowledge this news.

https://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=3&AID=118700#916160
https://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=3&AID=118311#911735
https://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=3&AID=97450&cmd=myposts

I notice whenever someone posts good news about the economy or Iraq you seem to disappear. Now tell me again how we refuse to see things.

Continued loss of manufacturing and Tec Jobs

Here is just a few quotes from factcheck that debunked Kerrys claims which mirror yours.

US manufacturing employment was in decline for nearly three years before Bush became President. It actually declined by 544,000 between the peak reached in March, 1998 and when Clinton left office, even as the economy added nearly 7.8 million jobs in all categories during the climax of a roaring economic boom that ended a few weeks after Bush was sworn in. In fact, 238,000 of those manufacturing jobs were lost in Clinton's last six month alone, showing that the decline was well-established even before Bush had spent a day in office.

Blame Bush only I guess.

Something democrats like yourself overlook....

The decline in manufacturing payrolls has been offset to a great degree by gains in such industries as health care, construction and government (teachers and firemen, for example.)

Where were you for this col?

Consumers shrugged off higher gasoline prices in April and sent a widely watched barometer of consumer confidence to its highest level in almost four years, a private research group said Tuesday.

Oh I forgot, that's good news. Something you refuse to hear.