Posted on 06/26/2003 4:47:32 AM PDT by Lance Romance
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:10:12 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
AST MONTH, when President Bush donned his coronation clothes and landed on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, I felt like the skunk at the victory party. I went around asking the partygoers: Where were the weapons of mass destruction?
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Anyone have any idea what she is talking about. This article basically meanders through several lines of incomplete thoughts only to end up at a conclusion that is supported by nothing. Nice job, Ellen.
Good self-assesment if you ask me.
Iraq was not involved in 11 September; even the Bush Adminstration has quit claiming this, although it is amazing how many people think Iraq was involved.
What an imbecilic statement. After Eight years of deception, fraud, and lies all the while this prude looked the other way now she thinks she's going to turn around and foist her BS on an Honest President.
All that's going on here is the American people are sick and tired of the leftwinged media's hyperbolic dissimulation.
Yous Guys did yourself proud in the 90's now your going to pay the price!!!!
a.) the bush admin never said it was b.) we don't know it wasn't...have you seen the story on the iraqi plane-hijacking training center?
That statement is a red herring and you know it. The Bush Administration tried for the longest time to link Saddam and al-qaida. And you yourself implied it with your own statement.
b.) we don't know it wasn't...have you seen the story on the iraqi plane-hijacking training center?
We don't know that a lot of countries weren't involved (Norway, Belize, Australia...); should we bomb every one of them on the suspicion that they might have been involved. Further, we KNEW the Saudis and Chinese were friendly with al-qaida and/or the Taliban. Why didn't we go after them?
When did the Bush adm. ever claim that Iraq was involved in 911?
The the Rush song goes...Show Don't Tell!!
Rabbits.
If Clinton wore a flight suit she'd still be swooning.
But if Clinton rode in on a carrier landing he'd still be wiping his barf off it.
I don't have that big a problem with Ellen's piece. I don't like being lied to or sold a bill of goods either. But a few caveats are in order.
First of all, one poll that is beaten to death is the one that says Americans thought Iraq was behind the 9-11 hijackings. Has anyone ever seen the question and how it was phrased? There are a lot of ways you could ask that question and get half of those of us who know the "facts" to say yes. Here's one: Saddam has been accused of supporting and harboring terrorists. Do you believe there could be a link between Saddam and the September 11 terrorists?
I think it's also important to point out that one great motivation for removing Saddam is the removal of a threat to world energy supplies. Exactly how would Ellen suggest we "sell" that as motivation when we all know exactly how the world "peace" movement would respond? Of course, they all walk to work so they are above this fray, right?
Finally, the War on Terror inevitably had to lead here. We had to get out of Saudi Arabia so that we could return should they be found to perpetrate another terrorist act. If the terror scum have as prime motivation our presence in SA, then only the removal of that presence with the threat of a noisy return will dissuade further terrorism against the U.S.
But we could not allow the Wahabbists the opportunity to control world energy supplies. In my view a master stroke, but as inevitable as rain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.