Saddam and 9/11

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 1/8/2004 | Jamie Glazov

[JohnGalt]

How tight is your tin foil hat?

What is it like to be lumped into the soccer mom vote under the category 'easily frightened of A-rab boogeymen'?

[The_Eaglet]

bump for further review

[nuconvert]

Hard to get the latest news and traffic report from #45, isn't it?

[JohnGalt]

LOL

And how often is the weather report right?

[nuconvert]

That's why I didn't mention the weather report.

[cyncooper]

More sound bites....

Uh huh. I suppose that's what you were saying before we went into Iraq. That Bush is all bluster and no action.

We should have gone after Iran first.

Says the great strategist "Emitter">

It is the terror threat. Now the military option is off the table?

Actually, the first article I linked you to said the military option is NOT off the table, but I see you don't let facts get in the way of your pontifications.

[jpl]

Tell it to U.S. District Judge Harold Baer. I'm sure that you know better than him though.

[Travis McGee]

So your main argument is that LM is a "phony" (says you) and I am wearing a tin foil hat because I disagree. WOW! I am so impressed! You are truly a genius and a master of this subject!

[Sean Osborne Lomax]

"...Mylroie is out there on the lecture circuit telling people that the country went to war because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, which is contrary to not only the White House but most people's opinions on the subject."

This statement about peoples opinions is demonstrably incorrect. In September 2003 a poll showed 70% of American's believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Events of September 11, 2001.

President Bush is on record this past September as saying that Iraqi cooperation with al-Qaeda is a well known fact, but that specific linkage of Saddam to the act of war on 9/11 is not an established fact.

That will change very soon. The connection is going to be made.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Great post!!

[JohnGalt]

There is no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Pure tinfoil hat stuff, but thank you for proving my point with your data. Section9 must be clutching his stomach over being allied with someone who boasts such claims.

[jpl]

The connection in fact not only has already been made, it's actually already been made in a court of law. Galt will never discuss Judge Baer's ruling because it directly contravenes everything believed by the so-called "libertarians" over at TomPaine.com. And one great thing about Judge Baer is that he can't be attacked as some far right-wing yahoo; he's a Clinton appointee.

[JohnGalt]

Judge Baer, that leftwing lunatic judge who want to go after Saudi gold and friends of Bush?

Sorry this is a conservative web site, take that over to DU.

[JohnGalt]

I would be happy to discuss Judge Baer's ruling and its relevance to this issue. After lunch anyway.

Why did you indicate I was backing down?

[JohnGalt]

I think you would be better off on a thread about the liberal media or the Clintons; you haven't brought much to the table in two posts. Very little wit, no insights, and no political science disections (thank you Section9.)

[Pan_Yans Wife]

ROTFL!

[grumple]

bflr (bump for later read)

[americanSoul]

Hanson has been one of the truly magnificent observers of the scene over the last years. When I see a so-called "expert" make a wholly gratuitous criticism of a man of his caliber it is the "expert" who becomes suspect in my eyes.

I agree. VDH is a giant and a great American patriot.

Just a reading of "An Autumn of War" proves this.

[jpl]

You attacking anyone here as a leftist is one of the funniest things imaginable, considering that almost every source you quote to back up your points is pure left-wing.

Do us all a favor and stop pretending that you're a conservative, and stay at TomPaine.com where you belong. You're not fooling anyone here, and you're a joke.

[Sean Osborne Lomax]

"There is no connection between Saddam and 9/11." Pure unadulterated horse hooey!