[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Joe Rogan expressed deep concern that Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Zelensky will start World War III

Fury in Memphis after attempted murder suspect who ambushed FedEx employee walks free without bail

Tehran preparing for attack against Israel: Ayatollah Khamenei's aide

Huge shortage plagues Israeli army as losses mount in Lebanon, Gaza

Researchers Find Unknown Chemical In Drinking Water Posing "Potential Human Health Concern"

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

The Problem of the Bitcoin Billionaires

Biden: “We’re leaving America in a better place today than when we came into office four years ago … "

Candace Owens: Gaetz out, Bondi in. There's more to this than you think.

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This???

Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review

Russian children returned from Syria


National News
See other National News Articles

Title: Cheney Sticks to His Delusions
Source: Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... /04/06/BL2007040601116_pf.html
Published: Apr 6, 2007
Author: Dan Froomkin
Post Date: 2007-04-06 15:32:46 by ...
Keywords: None
Views: 4509
Comments: 83

Cheney Sticks to His Delusions

By Dan Froomkin
Special to Friday,>http://washingtonpost.com
Friday,
April 6, 2007; 1:20 PM

Faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, even President Bush has backed off his earlier inflammatory assertions about links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

But Vice President Cheney yesterday, in an interview with right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, continued to stick to his delusional guns.

Cheney told Limbaugh that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading al-Qaeda operations in Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

"[A]fter we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney said. "And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq." (Think Progress has the audio clip.)

But Cheney's narrative is wrong from beginning to end. For instance, Zarqawi was not an al-Qaeda member until after the war. Rather, intelligence sources now agree, he was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents. And although he worked hard to inflame sectarian violence after the invasion, he certainly didn't start it.

As it happens, just in case anyone needed more evidence of the spuriousness of Cheney's views, yesterday also marked the release of yet another report confirming that that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government were not working together before the invasion.

The report also further documents how Cheney willfully ignored reliable intelligence in favor of broadcasting invented assertions emerging from a rogue Defense Department office -- a habit he apparently has yet to break.The Latest Report

R. Jeffrey Smith writes in The Washington Post: "Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides 'all confirmed' that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

"The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."

According to the report, "a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

"The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was 'mature' and 'symbiotic,' marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics."

Those conclusions, running so contrary to traditional intelligence findings, were "leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war" and then "were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic."

Tony Capaccio writes for Bloomberg that the report draws "a direct connection between the Sept. 16 White House briefing and Cheney's public comments thereafter.

"Four days later, Cheney referred at fundraiser to a 'well-established pattern of cooperation between Iraq and terrorists.'

"And on Dec. 2, Cheney warned in a speech that Hussein's regime 'has had high-level contact with al-Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al-Qaeda terrorists.' His language mirrored that on briefing chart entitled 'Summary of Known Iraq-al-Qaeda Contacts -- 1990-2002.'"

Here is the full text of the report; as well as the slides used by Feith's office in its presentation to senior White House officials.

On one slide entitled "Fundamental Problems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information," Feith's office suggests that the CIA and others were underestimating how hard Iraq and Al Qaeda would be trying to hide their relationship -- so that, in their words, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That, of course, is highly reminiscent of the administration's key pre-war assertion that the lack of evidence of Iraqi WMDs proved how diligently Saddam was hiding them. In both cases, the administration stood traditional intelligence-gathering methodology on its head by insisting that lack of evidence was more indicative than evidence -- in other words that conviction trumped facts.The Limbaugh Connection

It's not a coincidence that Cheney was talking to Limbaugh yesterday. The show has been one of Cheney's favorite venues.

As I wrote in my January 29 column, The Unraveling of Dick Cheney, Cheney is increasingly out of touch with reality. He seems to think that by asserting things that are simply untrue, he can make others believe they are so.

In Limbaughland, he's right.

In Limbaughland, not only were Saddam and Al Qaeda linked but -- more significantly -- liberals hate America. In Limbaughland, Cheney can say a lot simply by failing to disagree with his host's assertions.

Consider a few of yesterday's exchanges.

Limbaugh was complaining to Cheney about how the Democrats seem to be primarily motivated by a desire "to make sure we come home defeated."

Limbaugh: "Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance to the concept of U.S. defeat?"

Cheney: "I can't."

I wrote yesterday about Bush's recess appointment of three controversial officials including Sam Fox, whose nomination to be ambassador to Belgium was opposed by Democrats on account of his 2004 donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Limbaugh called Fox "a great American" and praised the White House for making an end-run around Democratic opposition.

Limbaugh: "This is the kind of move that garners a lot of support from the people in the country. This shows the administration willing to engage these people and not allow them to get away with this kind of -- well, my term -- you don't have to accept it -- Stalinist behavior from these people on that committee."

Cheney: "Well, you're dead on, Rush."

The two also chuckled about the White House move.

Limbaugh: "You go on vacation, this is what happens to you."

Cheney: "If you're a Democrat." They both laughed.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-23) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#24. To: BeAChooser (#20)

They say they met al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the invasion.

No, you say they say they met al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the invasion.

I say I haven't seen that even in the shit you posted above.

I do know that they were tortured however and that would have a big bearing on whatever they say.

But back to the point, do you have a single bonafide case of Al Qaeda operating in Iraq prior to the start of the war? Given what I have seen from you so far, I am inclined to believe the United States Defense Department on this subject. Their report indicates that you are full of shit.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   18:51:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: BeAChooser (#23)

In court they didn't claim they were tortured

Haw haw haw haw haw haw haw!!!!!!!

Read your post before hitting the button. Ask yourself if your statement is utterly asinine or not. It will save you from this sort of moronic statement.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   18:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: ..., ALL (#17)

the incident took place in 2004

The bombers were caught in 2004 but they said they met al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the invasion when he hatched the plot and funded the operation. If you'd done any reading before you decided to embarrass yourself, you'd know that they then said they went to Syria and never returned to Iraq before they were caught trying to smuggle the vehicles, explosives and chemicals into Jordan.

Really, ..., you need a new act. This one has gotten really stale and is now only going to discredit you permanently.

Then I guess you'll change your screen name or move to yet another forum. Maybe a similar embarassment is why you won't tell us where you posted before 4um and under what screenname you posted. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   18:53:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: BeAChooser (#23)

They didn't look tortured in the videos where they confessed.

Hah hah hah hah hah ha ha ha ha !!!!

Oh my sides.

Neither did the Brits did they. But you wingnuts don't have any trouble at all claiming they were tortured.

Since when do the put the guy on a rack in court? This has got to be the silliest red herring you have tried to date.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   18:56:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: ..., ALL (#18)

Not one of the URLs above is from this site.

False. I even linked you to the post at 4um where the links were provided to you:

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48869&Disp=160#C160

You're really determined to make yourself a laughing stock, aren't you.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   18:56:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: BeAChooser (#26)

The bombers were caught in 2004 but they said they met al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the invasion when he hatched the plot and funded the operation.

Why don't you just re-write the story so that it says what you need it to say. Ooops, I forgot. You already tried that.

And I assume they met with Zarqawi in the northern no fly zone where Zarqawi was living at the time. The area where Saddam had no control. And I further assume you damn well know this and that you are again witholding relevant facts as the facts show you to be a deliberate bald faced liar.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:00:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: ..., ALL (#19)

This incident took place in 2004, well after the start of the war.

Maybe your problem is you can't read. I didn't say the incident took place before the war.

I said the terrorists admitted to having met with al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war to hatch and fund the plot. And that fact has been documented in the mainstream press, not just Newsmax.

Really, ..., when will you try a new act? This one is not only old but tiresome.

But if you want to go on discrediting yourself, fine with me.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:01:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: ..., ALL (#22)

I note that it doesn't say one fucking word about Al Qaeda operating in Iraq prior to the start of the war.

You're not being honest. Terrorists who ADMIT they are al-Qaeda say they met al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the invasion when he funded their chemical bomb plot. Apparently you have problems in math, too, and can't add 2 and 2.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:04:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: BeAChooser, ... (#30)

Maybe your problem is you can't read.

Or doesn't have a monitor, trying to debate a bunch of blips and bleeps coming over the modem.

Yes, that must be the case.

"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar

Dakmar  posted on  2007-04-07   19:05:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: BeAChooser (#28)

Changing the subject again are we?

What about Zarqawi being in the norther no fly zone prior to the start of the war? Was this where your alleged meeting took place? I notice that you choose your words very carefully when spinning this. Recall that Saddam had no authority in the Northern No Fly Zone and that is why Zarqawi operated there.

Given this, it seems the Defense Department report still stands and you are full of shit.

By the way, if any of the shit you spew is true, why doesn't Bush use it to save his sinking Presidency. I find it fascinating that you WILL NOT address this question.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:05:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: BeAChooser (#31)

Terrorists who ADMIT they are al-Qaeda

So you're saying only the British are capable of successful false-flag operations?

"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar

Dakmar  posted on  2007-04-07   19:06:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: BeAChooser (#31)

You're not being honest. Terrorists who ADMIT they are al-Qaeda say they met al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the invasion when he funded their chemical bomb plot.

By your scummy weasel words I can tell that the only sources you have indicate that the meeting took place in the area where Zarqawi lived, the Northern No Fly Zone. An area where Saddam had no authority. Zarqawi operated there because Saddam would have hung him if he went to a Saddam controlled region.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:07:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: BeAChooser (#31)

Look kook, if you don't answer this question here, I am going to put up a separate thread and bump it day and night.

If any of your silly spew is true, if any shred of the moronic shit you have posted above is true, why doesn't Bush go on national TV tonight and save his sinking Presidency with it? Why does he leave it to kooks like you to push it on internet forums and why does it only come out in goob fooler rags like NewsMax - which, by the way, are targeted at gullible kooks like yourself?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: ..., ALL (#24)

"They say they met al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the invasion."

No, you say they say they met al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the invasion.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_6_30.html “I met with Abu Musab in Baghdad, who told me that a man called al-Jubouri will be the contact man between me and Abu Musab,” said Jayousi, one of 13 suspects in an alleged plan to attack Jordanian intelligence agency headquarters in Amman."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2004/05/05/11586.html "Four surviving alleged terrorists were shown in videotaped statements. Their self-professed leader was identified as Azmi al-Jayyusi. "In Herat (Afghanistan), I began training for Abu Musab," Jayyusi says in a translation published by the BBC. "The training included high-level explosives and poison courses. I then pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and agreed to work for him without any discussion. After the fall of Afghanistan, I met al-Zarqawi once again in Iraq. "In Iraq, Abu Musab told me to go to Jordan along with Muwaffaq Udwan to prepare for a military operation in Jordan," said Jayyusi. Once he was in Jordan, Zarqawi sent him money via couriers, said Jayyusi. "He also supplied me, through messengers, with forged passports, identity cards and car registrations and all that is necessary.""

***************

Jaiousi admits meeting with Zarqawi in Baghdad, receiving instructions for attacks

Jordan Times 2005

30 June 2005

By Rana Husseini

Amman - The main defendant in the case of nine men standing trial for plotting the first chemical attack in the Kingdom, on Wednesday said he met with Abu Mussab Zarqawi in Baghdad to prepare for the alleged attacks.

In a videotape confession screened during the trial at the State Security Court (SSC) yesterday, Azmi Jaiousi said he met with Zarqawi and two other men in Iraq. "Zarqawi told me there would be military operations in Jordan soon and we needed to prepare for them... he gave me around $50,000, weapons, explosive devices and instructions to launch attacks. Our first target was State Prosecutor Mahmoud Obeidat," Jaiousi was quoted as saying in the videotape.

A second target was a General Intelligence Department (GID) officer who had blue eyes and a white Mercedes, he added. Jaiousi said he infiltrated into the Kingdom from Iraq in February 2002, hidden in a truck, and later met up with the rest of the defendants. Jaiousi also reenacted how he bought chemical substances, electric and electronic equipment and lab devices from shops in the downtown area.

The videotape also showed him manufacturing explosives and transporting empty jerry cans into trucks with defendants Husni Sharif and Ahmad Samir. The prosecution is charging that the defendants intended to use these deadly chemical substances in an attack on the GID headquarters. An explosives expert testified recently that if the chemical substances had been mixed with explosives they would have caused burns, suffocation and neurological paralysis.

During the screening of the video, the defendants claimed that the prosecution denied them the right of appointing lawyers to be present during the interrogations. Obeidat refuted their claims saying he had informed them of their right for an attorney, but they "turned down his offer." During the two-hour session, Obeidat rested his case opening the way for the defence team to present their evidence.

The defence lawyers asked the court for more time to meet with their clients and prepare the defence statements. The tribunal agreed and adjourned the session until next week. The nine men, part of a group of 13 suspects including Zarqawi, are also charged with possessing and manufacturing explosives with illicit intent, and possessing an automatic weapon with the intention of using it illegally. Jaiousi appeared on Jordan Television shortly after his arrest and described how he and other group members had bought and manufactured chemical explosives under the guidance and support of Zarqawi."

*********

I do know that they were tortured however

Really? You were there and saw it? Because none of the mainstream articles has indicated anything to suggest torture.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:13:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: ..., ALL (#29)

And I assume they met with Zarqawi in the northern no fly zone where Zarqawi was living at the time.

No, they clearly stated they met him in BAGHDAD.

Your desperation is beginning to show, ...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:15:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: ..., ALL (#33)

What about Zarqawi being in the norther no fly zone prior to the start of the war? Was this where your alleged meeting took place? I notice that you choose your words very carefully when spinning this.

No, I've clearly stated from the beginning that the terrorists said they met al-Zarqawi in Baghdad. Are you democRAT, ...? Is that why you show no shame while embarrassing yourself as badly as you have on this thread?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:17:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: BeAChooser (#31)

To recap, you claimed that the Jordan bomb plot proved Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq prior to the war.

I pointed out that the damn thing took place in April 2004, an entire year after the commencement of hostilitites.

You also claimed that the perps met with Zarqawi "in Iraq" prior to the war - and you were very tight lipped about the rest of the details.

I pointed out that prior to the war, Zarqawi lived in the Northern No Fly Zone. An area where Saddam had no authority. I also pointed out that Zarqawi lived there because Saddam would have hung him if Saddam could have gotten his hand on Zarqawi prior to the war - Saddam was inclined to do that to these religious nuts, as were the secular governments of Egypt.

So basically kook, you tried to fool us by bending the fact in a story which you knew damn good and well did not suppport your assertion.

You are a lying scumbag.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: BeAChooser (#39)

No, I've clearly stated from the beginning that the terrorists said they met al-Zarqawi in Baghdad.

Prove it.

Zarqawi wasn't allowed in Saddam controlled territory. That is one of the reasons the United States defense department reported as it did. That is the reason Zarqawi operated out of the norther territories.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:19:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: BeAChooser (#39)

Are you democRAT, ...? Is that why you show no shame while embarrassing yourself as badly as you have on this threa

I can always tell when I have you in a lie. You try to change the subject or go personal.

Didn't work scumbag.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:21:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: ..., ALL (#35)

By your scummy weasel words I can tell that the only sources you have indicate that the meeting took place in the area where Zarqawi lived, the Northern No Fly Zone.

Too bad you posted that before post #37. Maybe your problem is you don't actually know how to use your browser to investigate matters such as that. Or do you just think it is easier run off at the mouth and post red herring after red herring.

Stale, ...

Your act is really stale now.

Time for a screenname change?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:21:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: BeAChooser (#38)

No, they clearly stated they met him in BAGHDAD.

The links you posted say that they met with him in "Iraq".

Hell of a big difference huh? Northern no fly zone and all?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:22:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: BeAChooser (#43)

Stale, ...

Your act is really stale now.

Time for a screenname change?

Are you trying to change the subject or go personal here?

I can't really tell.

Which scumball tactic are you trying to implement? Be a little more clear.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:24:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: BeAChooser (#43)

Why don't you whine to Christine?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:24:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: BeAChooser (#39)

Let me ask the question again:

If any of your silly spew is true, if any shred of the moronic shit you have posted above is true, why doesn't Bush go on national TV tonight and save his sinking Presidency with it? Why does he leave it to kooks like you to push it on internet forums and why does it only come out in goob fooler rags like NewsMax - which, by the way, are targeted at gullible kooks like yourself?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:26:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: BeAChooser (#43)

If any of your silly spew is true, if any shred of the moronic shit you have posted above is true, why doesn't Bush go on national TV tonight and save his sinking Presidency with it? Why does he leave it to kooks like you to push it on internet forums and why does it only come out in goob fooler rags like NewsMax - which, by the way, are targeted at gullible kooks like yourself?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:26:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: BeAChooser (#43) (Edited)

If any of your silly spew is true, if any shred of the moronic shit you have posted above is true, why doesn't Bush go on national TV tonight and save his sinking Presidency with it? Why does he leave it to kooks like you to push it on internet forums and why does it only come out in goob fooler rags like NewsMax - which, by the way, are targeted at gullible kooks like yourself?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: BeAChooser (#43)

I am not going to let you dodge this by hurling insults or trying to change the subject:

If any of your silly spew is true, if any shred of the moronic shit you have posted above is true, why doesn't Bush go on national TV tonight and save his sinking Presidency with it? Why does he leave it to kooks like you to push it on internet forums and why does it only come out in goob fooler rags like NewsMax - which, by the way, are targeted at gullible kooks like yourself?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:27:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: ..., christine, all (#40)

You also claimed that the perps met with Zarqawi "in Iraq" prior to the war - and you were very tight lipped about the rest of the details.

You look around and you'd find I've been saying the terrorists admitted to meeting al-Zarqawi in Baghdad for a long time. I thought you claimed to know all about me and my statements. Apparently not. And far from being tight lipped, I provided links you were too lazy to actually visit.

Besides, christine has warned me that if post anything but links I'll be punished. I was just doing her bidding. Right, christine?

I pointed out that prior to the war, Zarqawi lived in the Northern No Fly Zone.

But he was in Baghdad for a time. That's public knowledge. And apparently he was there when the terrorists met him because they said they met him in Baghdad. Or are you still suffering from a reading problem?

You are a lying scumbag.

You are only embarrassing yourself.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:27:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: BeAChooser (#39)

I am not going to let you dodge this by changing the subject or tossing out silly insults:

If any of your silly spew is true, if any shred of the moronic shit you have posted above is true, why doesn't Bush go on national TV tonight and save his sinking Presidency with it? Why does he leave it to kooks like you to push it on internet forums and why does it only come out in goob fooler rags like NewsMax - which, by the way, are targeted at gullible kooks like yourself?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:28:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: BeAChooser (#51)

But he was in Baghdad for a time. That's public knowledge.

No, that is your spew. From what I've read he was in the Northern No Fly Zone and Bush refused to take him out there. Bush had two chances and he needed the guy alive to say that Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

That is why the links you posted don't say "Baghdad" they say "Iraq".

But you know this.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:30:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: ... (#52)

The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney (rm 40Mins 13Megs)

http://207.44.245.159/video1/mer_thief_Dick_Cheney.rm

"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2007-04-07   19:31:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: BeAChooser (#51)

By the way kook, you are still dodging the question:

If any of your silly spew is true, if any shred of the moronic shit you have posted above is true, why doesn't Bush go on national TV tonight and save his sinking Presidency with it? Why does he leave it to kooks like you to push it on internet forums and why does it only come out in goob fooler rags like NewsMax - which, by the way, are targeted at gullible kooks like yourself?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:31:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: ..., ALL (#41)

No, I've clearly stated from the beginning that the terrorists said they met al-Zarqawi in Baghdad.

Prove it.

What? That I stated from the beginning that the terrrorists said they met al-Zarqawi in Baghdad? Sure. This is a statement by me on a previous thread:

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48869&Disp=160#C160 "We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands."

Zarqawi wasn't allowed in Saddam controlled territory.

Who wasn't *allowing* him, ...?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:32:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: ..., ALL (#42)

Are you democRAT, ...? Is that why you show no shame while embarrassing yourself as badly as you have on this threa

I can always tell when I have you in a lie. You try to change the subject or go personal.

ROTFLOL! Do you consider it an insult to be called a democRAT?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:33:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: BeAChooser (#56)

What? That I stated from the beginning that the terrrorists said they met al-Zarqawi in Baghdad? Sure. This is a statement by me on a previous thread:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!

A little word twisting here?

I asked you to prove that Zarqawi was in Baghdad. (snork!) And you come back with " You asked me to prove that I STATED Zaraqwi was in Baghdad"????

Only a lying sack of shit like yourself would try a cheap debating tacting like this.

OK. Given your miserable performance here. We will take it as a fact that Zarqawi was not in Baghdad, you just said he was there.

Oh my sides.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:37:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: ..., ALL (#44)

The links you posted say that they met with him in "Iraq".

Problem reading?

***************

http://www.zawya.com/marketing.cfm?zp&p=/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20050630103112?cc

"Jordan: Jaiousi admits meeting with Zarqawi in Baghdad, receiving instructions for attacks

Jordan Times

30 June 2005

Amman - The main defendant in the case of nine men standing trial for plotting the first chemical attack in the Kingdom, on Wednesday said he met with Abu Mussab Zarqawi in Baghdad to prepare for the alleged attacks."

********************

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:37:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: BeAChooser (#57)

ROTFLOL! Do you consider it an insult to be called a democRAT?

I actually think you've been caught in a bald faced lie and you are trying to change the subject - like you always do when this happens.

I am not going to bite.

Zarqawi was not in Baghdad and you basically admitted it above. After you got busted for this you try to start a fight with cheap insults. LMAO!!

You really are a lying scumbag. One simply has to read the thread above to see it.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:39:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: ..., cheap debating tactic squad (#58)

Only a lying sack of shit like yourself would try a cheap debating tacting like this.

touche

"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar

Dakmar  posted on  2007-04-07   19:39:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: ..., ALL (#45)

Are you trying to change the subject or go personal here?

Nah ... just still curious about your past posting history. The moment I showed up on 4um you were on me about Ron Brown. Claimed to know all about me. Made me wonder if you and I had ever had a discussion about Ron Brown on some other forum. But you seem hesitant to tell me if you ever posted anywhere besides 4um.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   19:40:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: BeAChooser (#59)

Problem reading?

***************

http://www.zawya.com/marketing.cfm?zp&p=/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20050630103112?cc

"Jordan: Jaiousi admits meeting with Zarqawi in Baghdad, receiving instructions for attacks

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Chooser gets backed into a corner and tries his tried and proven tactic.

POSTING A DEAD LINK!!!!

Oh my sides.

You are a lying kook.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   19:40:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: BeAChooser (#59)

How many of your posts come from NewsMax? How many from Chalabi squad? Why do you hate Americans?

"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar

Dakmar  posted on  2007-04-07   19:42:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (65 - 83) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]