Horsepucky, yourself TIA, the quotes you gave me related to links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda, not Saddam/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. The latter was what Ron Davies inferred and what I disputed.

Bobert's post of 05 Dec 05 - 09:02 PM, shows the man at his deluded best. I see the 100,000 innocent dead have re-entered the equation (Bobert 100,000 innocent Iraqis HAVE NOT BEEN KILLED). I see that Bobert once again asks about "Offing" Saddam and asks why this simple question of his has "never" been answered - it has of course but Bobert just doesn't like that answer.

"UN resolutions like they mean andanged thing" they mean so much to the likes of Ron Davies and Co that they even invent some at times just so they can show that the US is in violantion of them - the UN and the sanction to attack Iraq. CarolC quotes the sovereign integrity of the State of Iraq, well unfortunately for CarolC the US and it's coalition partners have done nothing to alter the sovereign integrity of Iraq, they have effected Regime Change, that is all.

Now TO WIT: George Bush never actually linked the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001 with Saddam.... FACT... "In one speech after another in the mad-dash-to-war referance of 9/11 were sprinkled in... Waht was that all about, T??? Just seasoning???" No Bobert POSSIBLE FUTURE THREAT.

"Saddam has been removed. Time to leave, right???" As soon as the elected Iraqi Government tells us to leave.

So US presence is for no other reasons.." 'cept oil and stategic military reasons..." Of course Bobert, that is why no major US or British Oil Company has been awarded any of the Field Development Contracts, and no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq for any longer than the Iraqi Government wants the MNF there, the presence of that force also being subject to a UN Mandate - it runs out end of 2006 and is to be reviewed in June 2006.

Oh this is very much about Clinton, and the double standards of the anti-Bush faction when it comes to viewing the situation.

Oddly enough Bobert the percentage numbers of troops in Iraq spread between the 38 countries of the 2003 coalition and those of the 34 countries in 1991 coalition are about the same, in both cases the US provided the vast bulk of them.

Ron Davies - 05 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM

Regarding the quote and references to GWB and members of his administration clearly acknowledging that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. You have been given a quote from the Vice-President dated 8th September 2002, which somehow is a date that you chose to read as 8th September 2003, for some strange reason.

You and your fellow travellers have not come up with one single quote where GWB, or members of his administration have stated that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with the 911 attacks - Not one.

I can clearly see that you believe that they did "carry out a campaign to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 during the above period" - but that is all it is, it is your belief, and as with CarolC, just because it is your belief does not make it fact. All joint references to Iraq and Al-Qaeda, post 911, apart from those where the current administration clearly state that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, clearly refer to a possible future threat.

CarolC - 05 Dec 05 - 10:36 PM

"Teribus my good fellow, just as you asked, I gave you direct quotes from GWB himself with dates and links. Anyone can simply browse up the thread for proof of this."

The only thing that is invisible CarolC are the "direct quotes", the "dates", the "links" - in fact everything you mention above.