Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

Jim Yanik wrote:
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:


Jim Yanik wrote in message
1...

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
e.com:


Jim Yanik wrote in message
.21...

...

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are
you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.

When was Nidal killed?


The above comments were not from JYanik,your attribs are screwed up.


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but
still,contacts with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction.


Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.


Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
Speculation is not evidence.


Concerning WMD possibly moved to Syria,there was some unconfirmed
intelligence that this may have occurred.Israel seems to think
so.IIRC,there were 3 *specific* sites in Syria,but the US refused to check
them out.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.

ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
of a friendly relationship.


Or plausible denial,"cover your tracks".
IIRC,Saddam told them they could go freely in and out of Iraq.
Giving medical treatment to terrorists IS *support*,it's aiding and
abetting.No different than any MD who gives medical treatment to criminals
wounded in a crime and does not report it

Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?

Cheers

--mike



19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.


A failure of our open border policies and administration conflicts like the
State Dept's.

None of them Iraqi.

Mike Dargan wrote:

Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?

I'm sure you can provide an example? No? I didn't think so. The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a
crack down has begun.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:

Mike Dargan wrote:


Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?


I'm sure you can provide an example?

Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

No? I didn't think so.

If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

Cheers

--mike

The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a
crack down has begun.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:3FRZc.107321$Fg5.31523@attbi_s53...
BUFDRVR wrote:

Mike Dargan wrote:


Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?


I'm sure you can provide an example?

Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

"This is where Unger's accusations are greeted with skepticism. For experts,
connection does not prove corruption. Jonathan D. Tepperman, senior editor
at the policy journal Foreign Affairs, argues that Unger's book "has done a
really good job" showing "a lot of smoke but what he hasn't done is shown me
there is any fire." Tepperman wrote a critical review of Unger's book in The
New York Times Book Review. In an interview, Tepperman agreed with Unger
that "these connections" (such as President Bush hosting Bandar at his
Crawford ranch, an honor usually reserved for heads of state) do "look bad."
But he adds "what I don't see is any evidence that the Bush family ever let
their personal financial concerns dictate U.S. policy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612852.shtml

A book full of inuendo, and short of hard evidence.


No? I didn't think so.

If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

So what you are saying with all of that obtuse wording is that you don't
think too much?


Cheers

--mike

The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist
groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the
point and a
crack down has begun.

Odd how you missed out on this more important bit of Bufdrvr's response.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Mike Dargan wrote:

Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

You're going to have to do better than that. That book has been trashed by even
liberal critics.

If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

At least I think at all, you appear to just pick up the latest liberal rag and
absorb everything.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:
Mike Dargan wrote:


Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.


You're going to have to do better than that. That book has been trashed by even
liberal critics.


If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.


At least I think at all, you appear to just pick up the latest liberal rag and
absorb everything.

Ouch! There'll be tears on my pillow tonight.

Cheers

--mike



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"