Defending the Truth

I selected different bolded words below. JUST READ THE BOLD WORDS!

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

He used the word could and explained what Saddam is capable of doing. If he did not use the word "could" he would of been at fault and would have to owe us a big apology. The democrats would be able to impeach him easily. However he stated what could happen with Saddam in power. Nothing false about a recommendation to take down a mad man who has too much power and wants more power while aiding terrorists (the same terrorists who caused 9/11).

We have not been attacked since 9/11. I think Bush is doing a good job when it comes to our safety. You are pathetic to think he lied to the soldiers about the mission in Iraq.

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.


You guys are beyond help it seems.

I'm glad you understand everything else I selected.

So you think Bush told a lie when he said Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda?

Because that's been going on for years....

Thank you RidinHighSpeeds.You have just shown the difference in the context of the same speech emphasizing 2 different sets of words. My hats off to you.
The difference between Bush and the left is that Bush says what he means and the left dances around the truth like a flamenco dancer.For example Clinton in testimony saying "it depends on what the definition of "is"is."C'mon,he got blown by an intern who was not his wife.Ask any wife if a blowjob constitutes sex and she will probably say it does.Bush saying that means that these people are a threat to our security and we will not allow them to possibly give those weapons to a group that wants to see all of us dead.

Not according to the CIA. There has been no proof of a connection between Osama and Saddam. There is, however, a connection between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia.

From the 911 commission report
"Page 66

“In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.”
“According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.”
Page 128:
On November 4, 1998, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led (Richard) Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaida agreement” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq”.
The 9/11 report does say that “no evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out attacks against the United States (page 66)” were documented.

Bush never said that Iraq was involved with 911.He did however say that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.This evidently has gone under the radar of alot of people including hevusa.
So is it such a stretch that a terrorist organization that HAD ties to a country that had used chemical weapons in the past against its own people would eventually try to get some of those weapons or knowledge on how to produce them to use against its self-proclaimed enemy(theUS)?
I don't think so.

The truth about ties between Iraq and Osama can also be found in the book "Losing Bin Laden" by Richard Minter. Here is a url to check out
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...=UTF8&n=507846
I would cite references from the book but my copy is currently out on loan to my boss.

Again you see only what you want to see..
AGAIN, THE TRUTH:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html
There is no connection.

I never said or wrote that Iraq had anything to do with 911.But I can cite references of ties between the 2.For example:
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/2847.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.perryonpolitics.com/archives/001072.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/154020.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160442/posts
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

And the truth shall set you free.

Do you even understand the difference between my washingtonpost.com url and your url's?

Your ideology shall imprison you.