Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until 2004. An American election year. Coincidence?

Here's more to the point:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

And, moreover:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090800777.html


Again, It's not that Bush lied, it's that he BS'd. It's not that he meant to give a false impression of the truth, he didn't care what the truth was, at all.

In this way, BS is worse than lying.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30172.html

anyone else think they would have posted it on the internets tubes if it had been supportive of the dicknbush administration's policies?

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

FYI I'm not a Bush supporter. I think you might be right. Some people agreed with the idea of invading Iraq. And were willing to give Bush some licence in selling it.

I think the link makes clear that Bush, of course, would have loved to solidly align 9/11 and Iraq. But he didn't have it, so he plays some games. Grasping at the odd connections here and there between the groups and saying things like.

Iraq could use Al Queda to [fill in horrible thing here]

Which certainly isn't an actual lie. It's just a speculation.

Again you have posted links which support my argument:

"The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship"

The second link supports my arguments that it is in the interests of the democrats to re-write history and to make the US out to be the bad guy. If they can undermine the President's integrity and absolve themselves of their past support of the war, and at the same time undermine our country, our military and the troops efforts to stablize Iraq and bring about a successful defeat of American foreign policy, they have the chance to restore the democrats to power in the executive branch:

"The partial release of the report came after nearly three years of partisan wrangling over what is to be a five-chapter analysis of the use of prewar intelligence in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The heart of the report -- a detailed comparison of administration statements with the intelligence then available -- is far from release. But the committee voted Thursday to release two chapters, one on the role that Iraqi exiles played in shaping prewar intelligence, the other on the accuracy of the prewar analyses of Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities and his suspected links to al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissed the findings as old news. "If we have people who want to re-litigate that, that's fine," he said.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Your argument is that the administration made false claims, then, or?

Not really: it points out that the Bush Administration's claims were debunked before he made them.

It was a mistake to invade Iraq based on dubious intel.
There I said it.

We are now faced with the reality, what do we now.

If we were to abandon Iraq, the situation would be even more chaotic. It is the right decision to maintain a troop presence and limit the violence. The United States does not engage an enemy that does not engage them first. All violence would cease if the insurgency would cease. America would leave. Understand that.

No, this was my point:

This is old news my friend. The administration has long said that there were no operational ties between Saddam and al-Qeada, only that there had been contact between them, which this report does not refute.
No link between Saddam/al Qaeda: Pentagon

If you have trouble remembering my point, why don't you trying going back to my original post instead of disingenuously putting words in my mouth like, "Your argument is that the administration made false claims, then, or?"
My argument is that democrats have been doing this for a while which is to say re-writing history by saying Bush said there was an operational connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq or that Saddam was involved with 9/11 which could not be further from the truth. Then they try to point out that an absence of such evidence is proof that Bush lied. This argument is totally falacious.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

-The Prez

-Rummy

-Dick

The report refutes every one of these claims.

Now, you're trying to spin it, claiming that all they meant when they were talking about a connection, was single incidents of contact.

al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the war there.. what was it called?

Bush linked the threat of Saddam Hussein to the possibility of him directly helping al Qaeda. Thats as far as it went.

Not al qaeda.

Thus: al qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion.


Are you going to cite a bunch of bad intelligence again?

Or was the point of the Iraq war to enable the spread of Al qaeda to Iraq, as it clearly has done?