Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Rumsfeld admits it!!!

  1. #1
    Donald Rumsfeld was grilled today at an event in NYC..He admitted that 'as far as he was concerened'...there was no al qeada/ saddam connection!!!!

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    Link and a reliable quote please.


    I feel like I am dealing with a two year old.

  3. #3
    BRODY..
    I'll get it..it was just on cnn..
    but as far as I'm concerned..You are 19..No offense but you don't know squat about the world yet..

  4. #4
    Rumsfeld was also asked to describe the connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

    He declined to answer the question, but then said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

    He added that relationships among terrorists are "complicated."

    "They evolve and change over time. In many cases these different networks have common funders; in many cases they cooperate not in a chain of command but in a loose affiliation," he said.

    When asked what he thought was the primary reason for invading Iraq, he said it was important to remove Saddam's regime, but acknowledged the intelligence ahead of the invasion was faulty.

    [url=http://cbsnewyork.com/terror/terror_story_278151510.html]http://cbsnewyork.com/terror/terror_story_..._278151510.html[/url]

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    I just went on the cnn website and didnt see anything about it. Although Rumsfeld is a bit of a clown so it wouldnt surprise me if he spit out the truth and then retracts it later. But a link would be great, bman

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    You're correct, I am 19. Point?

    You could be 65, but after reading your posts, I can say I know a hell of a lot more than you do ;)

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    Once again, you matter to trail off from the truth. He never said there is no connection, he simply said there is no hard and concrete evidence, which even those who believe there is a connectio know to be true.

    There are a lot of ties between the two, but the problem is that Iraq/Al-Qaeda managed to hide them pretty well, so most of it isnt concrete. However, when you read these speculations and some of these facts, anyone with common sense could see these two were without a doubt connected.

  8. #8
    See your problem is you watch CNN. Oh wait the quote is from CBS news, Did Dan rather report it? hahahahah

  9. #9
    you were five years old so I don't expect you to know this but in 1990 Bin Laden wanted to his troops to fight Saddam's forced after they invaded Kuwait...
    Saddam was at war with the bin laden fanatics for a long time...
    I don't feel like getting into a history discussion with you...

    BUt Saddam has about as much in common with Bin Laden as you do...
    one is a baathist..one is wahhabiist...
    look it up...

    NO hard evidence is NOT what the administration told us on the march to war.
    skethcy intel is NOT what they told us...
    you were barely 17 back then..I can't hold it against you....

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    [quote][i]Originally posted by TheBrodyMan[/i]@Oct 4 2004, 02:51 PM
    [b] Once again, you matter to trail off from the truth. He never said there is no connection, he simply said there is no hard and concrete evidence, which even those who believe there is a connectio know to be true.

    There are a lot of ties between the two, but the problem is that Iraq/Al-Qaeda managed to hide them pretty well, so most of it isnt concrete. However, when you read these speculations and some of these facts, anyone with common sense could see these two were without a doubt connected. [/b][/quote]
    Not to rehash this over and over again, but "proof and hard-evidence" is always nice when you are going to attack a country with supposed terrorist links and WMD. Plus, we had "faulty" intelligence. These are all good reasons for a "pre-emptive strike". I guess I dont have the common sense to see the link.

    And yes Saddam was an evil mutha.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    [quote][i]Originally posted by 4th&Long+Oct 4 2004, 01:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (4th&Long @ Oct 4 2004, 01:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheBrodyMan[/i]@Oct 4 2004, 02:51 PM
    [b] Once again, you matter to trail off from the truth. He never said there is no connection, he simply said there is no hard and concrete evidence, which even those who believe there is a connectio know to be true.

    There are a lot of ties between the two, but the problem is that Iraq/Al-Qaeda managed to hide them pretty well, so most of it isnt concrete. However, when you read these speculations and some of these facts, anyone with common sense could see these two were without a doubt connected. [/b][/quote]
    Not to rehash this over and over again, but "proof and hard-evidence" is always nice when you are going to attack a country with supposed terrorist links and WMD. Plus, we had "faulty" intelligence. These are all good reasons for a "pre-emptive strike". I guess I dont have the common sense to see the link.

    And yes Saddam was an evil mutha. [/b][/quote]
    I agree, there shouldve been harder evidence produced for the people and the administration made a mistake using this as their focal platform.

    The problem becomes when people get blinded by all this no-WMD nonsense and miss the point that Saddam and Al-Qaeda are connected. There were and somewhere still are WMD&#39;s. Whether you agree with the way the administration introduced into the war is one thing, but the fact remains these guys are a threat and all those allegations being made are true, but its not as easy as some want to make it to be, to find the concrete evidence.

    And in response to bman&#39;s comments, you trip yourself up constantly. Because of what happened in 1990, you assume that things dont change. But what you failed to mention is that these two groups developed a hatred of this country, that they were able to look past their religious differences. Both these men saw that they could pursue their own goals by joining together. But I dont have time to get into the whole specifics of the situation, so go out and read a book. In fact, read the "Connection." If you are so fair and unbiased (as most libs claim they are), then read that and come back and tell me that these guys have absolutely NO conneciton. I dare you.

    Also bman, I do remember what the administration told us, and if you are so much smarter than me, why dont you leave my age out of this and just argue the facts. I know factual information is a hard concept for you to grasp, but at least try it instead of trying to use my age as a central focus of your weak argument.

  12. #12
    But what you failed to mention is that these two groups developed a hatred of this country, that they were able to look past their religious differences. Both these men saw that they could pursue their own goals by joining together. But I dont have time to get into the whole specifics of the situation, so go out and read a book. In fact, read the "Connection." If you are so fair and unbiased (as most libs claim they are), then read that and come back and tell me that these guys have absolutely NO conneciton. I dare you.



    DUDE..Look at your post..you speak more jibberish than Bush..
    why don&#39;t you tell me the evidence of a connection&#33;

    a real connection&#33; Bin Laden Fukin hated Saddam...EVEN when we attacked...Bin Laden said that Muslims should fight in Iraq (even THOUGH IT&#39;s a GODLESS socialist party.."..

    The CIA, FBI, every terrorism task force..now Rumsfeld..
    they have all said there was NO working relationship between the Baath party of Iraq and Bin Laden&#39;s al qeada network...NONE..
    yes, there were a few low level contacts over the course of a decade..BUT, there has been shady contacts all over the globe bwteen qeada and others..THAT IS NOT a reason to go to war..
    and yes BRODY, we all know Saddam was a dangerous fella. BUT he was never our enemy..He attacked Kuwait over an oil field..He attacked Iran (with our support) over an oil field...
    The US KNOWS that lybia, iran, n korea all have wmds&#39;...we didn&#39;t invade those countries...yes saddam ONce had wmd&#39;s...but from 01- today- Inspectors FOUND NOTHING..

    the admin. told us that Saddam was connected with al qeada and was an IMMINENT threat...EVERYONE now says that wasn&#39;t true&#33;

    therefore 150,000 troops invaded over a lie.

  13. #13
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 4 2004, 02:57 PM
    [b] you were five years old so I don&#39;t expect you to know this but in 1990 Bin Laden wanted to his troops to fight Saddam&#39;s forced after they invaded Kuwait...
    Saddam was at war with the bin laden fanatics for a long time...
    I don&#39;t feel like getting into a history discussion with you...

    BUt Saddam has about as much in common with Bin Laden as you do...
    one is a baathist..one is wahhabiist...
    look it up...

    NO hard evidence is NOT what the administration told us on the march to war.
    skethcy intel is NOT what they told us...
    you were barely 17 back then..I can&#39;t hold it against you.... [/b][/quote]
    Who are you kidding Bman. You&#39;r not a day over 20. BrodyMan has a much better perspective on current events and has shown himself to be an excellent contribotor to this forum.

    You are known for posting the same 4 lines over and over.

    Bush Lied (a lie in itself)
    Spent 200 billion in IRaq ( another false statement.)
    Killed 30,000 Iraqi Civillians ( once again untrue or at best unproven)
    Sent 1000 soldiers to die for nothing (it will only be for nothing if Kerry wins the election then cuts and runs like your hoping he&#39;ll do)

  14. #14
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 4 2004, 03:22 PM
    [b] But what you failed to mention is that these two groups developed a hatred of this country, that they were able to look past their religious differences. Both these men saw that they could pursue their own goals by joining together. But I dont have time to get into the whole specifics of the situation, so go out and read a book. In fact, read the "Connection." If you are so fair and unbiased (as most libs claim they are), then read that and come back and tell me that these guys have absolutely NO conneciton. I dare you.



    DUDE..Look at your post..you speak more jibberish than Bush..
    why don&#39;t you tell me the evidence of a connection&#33;

    a real connection&#33; Bin Laden Fukin hated Saddam...EVEN when we attacked...Bin Laden said that Muslims should fight in Iraq (even THOUGH IT&#39;s a GODLESS socialist party.."..

    The CIA, FBI, every terrorism task force..now Rumsfeld..
    they have all said there was NO working relationship between the Baath party of Iraq and Bin Laden&#39;s al qeada network...NONE..
    yes, there were a few low level contacts over the course of a decade..BUT, there has been shady contacts all over the globe bwteen qeada and others..THAT IS NOT a reason to go to war..
    and yes BRODY, we all know Saddam was a dangerous fella. BUT he was never our enemy..He attacked Kuwait over an oil field..He attacked Iran (with our support) over an oil field...
    The US KNOWS that lybia, iran, n korea all have wmds&#39;...we didn&#39;t invade those countries...yes saddam ONce had wmd&#39;s...but from 01- today- Inspectors FOUND NOTHING..

    the admin. told us that Saddam was connected with al qeada and was an IMMINENT threat...EVERYONE now says that wasn&#39;t true&#33;

    therefore 150,000 troops invaded over a lie. [/b][/quote]
    Saddam supported terror. Zarquawi was in Iraq. Iraq even had terrorist training camps operating prior to the US invasion. Those facts are not in dispute. Where do you think we got the intel on the terrorist ring in Albany? From the Terorrist training camps in Iraq.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 4 2004, 02:22 PM
    [b] But what you failed to mention is that these two groups developed a hatred of this country, that they were able to look past their religious differences. Both these men saw that they could pursue their own goals by joining together. But I dont have time to get into the whole specifics of the situation, so go out and read a book. In fact, read the "Connection." If you are so fair and unbiased (as most libs claim they are), then read that and come back and tell me that these guys have absolutely NO conneciton. I dare you.



    DUDE..Look at your post..you speak more jibberish than Bush..
    why don&#39;t you tell me the evidence of a connection&#33;

    a real connection&#33; Bin Laden Fukin hated Saddam...EVEN when we attacked...Bin Laden said that Muslims should fight in Iraq (even THOUGH IT&#39;s a GODLESS socialist party.."..

    The CIA, FBI, every terrorism task force..now Rumsfeld..
    they have all said there was NO working relationship between the Baath party of Iraq and Bin Laden&#39;s al qeada network...NONE..
    yes, there were a few low level contacts over the course of a decade..BUT, there has been shady contacts all over the globe bwteen qeada and others..THAT IS NOT a reason to go to war..
    and yes BRODY, we all know Saddam was a dangerous fella. BUT he was never our enemy..He attacked Kuwait over an oil field..He attacked Iran (with our support) over an oil field...
    The US KNOWS that lybia, iran, n korea all have wmds&#39;...we didn&#39;t invade those countries...yes saddam ONce had wmd&#39;s...but from 01- today- Inspectors FOUND NOTHING..

    the admin. told us that Saddam was connected with al qeada and was an IMMINENT threat...EVERYONE now says that wasn&#39;t true&#33;

    therefore 150,000 troops invaded over a lie. [/b][/quote]
    I am not going to get into all of your points because they are straight up nonsense. But since you are so adimant on the fact that there is NO connection, I will deliver you direct evidence showing you there is.

    - Al Qaeda&#39;s Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998

    [i]I guess they were just having tea, right?[/i]

    - Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri &#036;300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda

    [i]Friendly loan right?[/i]

    -Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, al Qaeda operatives held in Guantanamo corroborated previously sketchy reports of a series of meetings in Khartoum, Sudan, home to al Qaeda during the mid-90s. U.S. officials learned more about the activities of Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi, an al Qaeda WMD specialist sent by bin Laden to seek WMD training, and possibly weapons, from the Iraqi regime. Intelligence specialists also heard increasingly detailed reports about meetings in Baghdad between al Qaeda leaders and Uday Hussein in April 1998, at a birthday celebration for Saddam.

    And of course the Prague connection, but thats BS right because the cameras were a little iffy?

    This is just some of the evidence out there and I advise when you go to Google, instead of searching for "Why I should hate Bush," go out there and type "Iraqi Al-qaeda connection," or" WMD&#39;s found," because if ti comes up empty then...then you might be on to something. But for now, you arent.

  16. #16
    QUOTE (bman @ Oct 4 2004, 02:22 PM)
    But what you failed to mention is that these two groups developed a hatred of this country, that they were able to look past their religious differences. Both these men saw that they could pursue their own goals by joining together. But I dont have time to get into the whole specifics of the situation, so go out and read a book. In fact, read the "Connection." If you are so fair and unbiased (as most libs claim they are), then read that and come back and tell me that these guys have absolutely NO conneciton. I dare you.



    DUDE..Look at your post..you speak more jibberish than Bush..
    why don&#39;t you tell me the evidence of a connection&#33;

    a real connection&#33; Bin Laden Fukin hated Saddam...EVEN when we attacked...Bin Laden said that Muslims should fight in Iraq (even THOUGH IT&#39;s a GODLESS socialist party.."..

    The CIA, FBI, every terrorism task force..now Rumsfeld..
    they have all said there was NO working relationship between the Baath party of Iraq and Bin Laden&#39;s al qeada network...NONE..
    yes, there were a few low level contacts over the course of a decade..BUT, there has been shady contacts all over the globe bwteen qeada and others..THAT IS NOT a reason to go to war..
    and yes BRODY, we all know Saddam was a dangerous fella. BUT he was never our enemy..He attacked Kuwait over an oil field..He attacked Iran (with our support) over an oil field...
    The US KNOWS that lybia, iran, n korea all have wmds&#39;...we didn&#39;t invade those countries...yes saddam ONce had wmd&#39;s...but from 01- today- Inspectors FOUND NOTHING..

    the admin. told us that Saddam was connected with al qeada and was an IMMINENT threat...EVERYONE now says that wasn&#39;t true&#33;

    therefore 150,000 troops invaded over a lie.


    I am not going to get into all of your points because they are straight up nonsense. But since you are so adimant on the fact that there is NO connection, I will deliver you direct evidence showing you there is.

    - Al Qaeda&#39;s Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998

    I guess they were just having tea, right?

    - Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri &#036;300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda

    Friendly loan right?

    -Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, al Qaeda operatives held in Guantanamo corroborated previously sketchy reports of a series of meetings in Khartoum, Sudan, home to al Qaeda during the mid-90s. U.S. officials learned more about the activities of Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi, an al Qaeda WMD specialist sent by bin Laden to seek WMD training, and possibly weapons, from the Iraqi regime. Intelligence specialists also heard increasingly detailed reports about meetings in Baghdad between al Qaeda leaders and Uday Hussein in April 1998, at a birthday celebration for Saddam.

    And of course the Prague connection, but thats BS right because the cameras were a little iffy?

    This is just some of the evidence out there and I advise when you go to Google, instead of searching for "Why I should hate Bush," go out there and type "Iraqi Al-qaeda connection," or" WMD&#39;s found," because if ti comes up empty then...then you might be on to something. But for now, you arent.



    PLEASE PROVE ONE corraborated statement&#33;&#33;&#33;
    &#036;300,000 payment would have been used as evidence by the administartion...I forgot ..BRODY and Cheifs and some right wingers KNOW MORE than the FBI, The CIA, The Terrorism task force, COLIN POWell, and NOW DONALD Rumsfeld&#33;

    Here is a FACT that I DO KNOW...during the debate, John Kerry said that the 9-11 comission found NO WMDS, NO saddam connection to 9-11, and NO AL QEADA IRAQ connection....

    BUSH SAID NOTHING IN REPLY>>>>
    NOT EVEN ONE THING THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOVE....
    so please..stop..
    either way the fact is there was NO evidence to justify this BS war..
    the 300,000 &#036;

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    I did what you said Brody, but the sources that came up were no better than me posting Bin Laden sleeps with Bush in White House and posting some ultra-liberal blog or something. (I am being a over the top). I found the Weekly Standard and Bowling for Truth. A number of the search links came up as anti-Iraqi-Al Qaeda links-proclaiming there was little evidence (CNN, The Washington Post-I can already hear the liberal bias screams). Call me naieve but if a real link was found, wouldnt all of these outlets report it. I have a hard time believing they wouldnt. If we had actual hard proof that couldnt be disputed.

    My problem is why cant we know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a connection? Why cant we get some hard evidence? If I was in a jury box, I would need evidence to send a person to jail, etc.etc. The nation shouldnt be divided over something like this. Something this important. Should we? Or are you suggesting we should all read FreeRepublic.com and believe every word.

  18. #18
    fact is 4th...people don&#39;t want to belive that there gov&#39;t lies..

    when Ricjard clark said it..conservatives attacked him..when Jow wilson said it, conservatives attacked him..IF CNN, CBS, NY Times, Wash Times or any &#39;liberal rag&#39; said it,,,,they were attacked..

    well now even Rummy says that there was no proof or hard eveidence...now they tell us, "well saddam was still a bad guy&#33;"...

    The facts are...we know who financed a lot of al qeada...SAudi Arabian royal familyu backed Charities did...WE know that Saudi Arabia exports wahhabiism and is home to 14 of the 19 hijackers...we know were most of al qeada operatives come from (NO IRAQUIS)..
    we know a lot about al qeada..we know that 9-11 cost &#036;500,000..We know that Al qeada was using afghanistan as the base...WE know a lot&#33; Nothing we know implicates Iraq at all&#33;

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 4 2004, 03:52 PM
    [b] fact is 4th...people don&#39;t want to belive that there gov&#39;t lies..

    when Ricjard clark said it..conservatives attacked him..when Jow wilson said it, conservatives attacked him..IF CNN, CBS, NY Times, Wash Times or any &#39;liberal rag&#39; said it,,,,they were attacked..

    well now even Rummy says that there was no proof or hard eveidence...now they tell us, "well saddam was still a bad guy&#33;"...

    The facts are...we know who financed a lot of al qeada...SAudi Arabian royal familyu backed Charities did...WE know that Saudi Arabia exports wahhabiism and is home to 14 of the 19 hijackers...we know were most of al qeada operatives come from (NO IRAQUIS)..
    we know a lot about al qeada..we know that 9-11 cost &#036;500,000..We know that Al qeada was using afghanistan as the base...WE know a lot&#33; Nothing we know implicates Iraq at all&#33; [/b][/quote]
    bman, your sort of the guy at the party who, after about ten beers, starts running around and yelling random things. There is nothing wrong with that. I think its hilarious.

    I agree with a lot of what you say; you just say it in a random, yet repetitive way...your spelling mistakes are classic...

  20. #20
    dude i&#39;m typing so fast and with so much emotion that the mistakes happen&#33;

    wilco tomorrow night&#33;

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us