I know Saddam isnt linked to 9/11, but help my moron pal

[zls44]

I need articles to back it up.

[Skittles]

1. ask your moron pal

to send you articles stating definitive proof that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Even if he can do that, you know they'd be easily debunked.

[RobertSeattle]

3. These guys want to believe it

It sooths their conscience. The Saddam/911 link is all about faith.

They do not want to be confused by the facts.

[Skittles]

14. sounds like relgion

eh, Robert?

[RapidCreek]

16. There you go!

You might also ask him what intellegence he is privy to which the CIA is not....you know, in that he is such a well informed sort of guy.

When he fails to do so....which of course he will...you might consider positing that he is UnAmerican. It is not the American way to suggest the accused must prove his or her innocence....in our country the one doing the accusing bears the burden of proof.

Ask your ignorant Pal to prove he is not fucking barnyard animals. Then suggest his certain inability to do so is proof enough for you to tell everyone in town that he does.

RC

[meatloaf]

2. You can simply remind him that the NSC, the CIA and the

recent 9/11 commission report all concluded that there was no verifiable link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

[arcane1]

4. put the burden of proof on him

we're always playing defense, turn it around on the person making the bogus claim

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. He is better off as he is

If he can find comfort in chanting USA USA and evildoers who hate freedom, then he is luckier than you.

Just nod and smile at him while moving away slowly.

[StandWatie]

6. not really

If there was any proof of that whatsoever W would have presented it instead of lying about the Friggin Laser Sharks or whatever he said Saddam was building to terrorize us with.

[priller]

7. Not even the Bushies have brought out proof

W just keeps saying things like, "We are in Iraq now because we can't let another 9/11 happen." There's the constant inference, but no outright claim, and certainly no proof. Just of the power of suggestion at work.

[Cocoa]

8. show him a map of the Muslim world

I seriously think a lot of people don't REALLY understand that there are a lot of different countries over there. A few minutes looking at a map can clear up a lot of myths.

[JHB]

9. I agree with the "make HIM prove it", but...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/101502a.html
Scroll down to "Unlikely Attack", and in references cited therein.

[CBHagman]

10. The Washington Post did an article on this misconception.

I'll have to find a link to it.

And today's Tom Toles cartoon deals with the same problem.

[Parche]

11. Tell him

That yes Saddaam was responsible for Sept 11th,
that he had 500 camels with scud missile launchers on them, waiting
in the sand for the mean Americans, that Saddaam had a nucular
bomb loaded in his bi-plane and was almost ready to fly over New york
to drop it, and his yacht was equipped with deck launched airplanes
and missiles, and it was seen near the east coast, and
he had milk cartons full of anthrax and sarin and toxin, but the
milk man didnt stop by that day and did not pick it up for delivery
to New york.

[CBHagman]

12. The Post article appeared September 6th, front page.

Here's the link:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32862-2003Sep5.html

By the way, even though the article mentions that Bush and his administration say there is no link, I can tell you that members of the administration and even the military mention September 11th in the same breath as the war in Iraq. Moreover, the choice of descriptive terms concerning Iraq, such as references to "terror," "death squads," and the like, instead of, for example, "guerrilla warfare," "resistance," etc., suggests a war of semantics is being fought as well.

Anyway, I can't tell you the number of times that someone like Paul Wolfowitz has invoked 9/11 as justification for the war in Iraq. What these clods don't mention is that Saddam's Iraq had a SECULAR government and would have been a natural enemy of al Qaeda, not an ally.

Moreover, pre-war references to terrorists in Iraq always mentioned the fact that they were in Kurd-controlled areas, not in Saddam-controlled regions.

Worse still, it now appears that al Qaeda is planning a front in Iraq. Various groups are apparently getting across the border NOW, when the U.S. is in charge. So much for security. So much for our newly stabilized Middle East.

[ProudGerman]

15. Not would have been

Actually was is the case here. Osama probably danced a little number, well, danced as much as being hooked to a Dialysis machine would allow that is, when Saddam was ousted. Osama wanted Saddam out, and we went and did that for him.....after Osama killed 3000 of us! The only thing that needs to happen to fulfill Osama wildest dreams is for us to pull out of the quagmire and a fundametalist regime takes over and fills the void.

Ya know, when people go and commit the greatest act of terror against us, we should probably refrain from doing their dirty work for them. Osama attacked us, and we went and did him a huge favor.


And now for the part that I sadly must add. No, I'm not for Saddam being in power in Iraq. I'm not saying that its not good that Saddam is no longer in power. I'm just saying is that we should have an exit strategy in place before going in. An exit strategy that involves everything from troop pullout schedule to a quick implementation of a new government. I'm also stating here just to let everybody know, we shouldn't have went in in the first place.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. Maybe the plan was never to have an exit strategery

:evilgrin: Gotta protect those oil fields for Bushco*

[rucky]

13. Google This:

link iraq 9/11 Wolfowitz

So if your friend doesn't trust the liberal media, maybe he'll believe Paul Wolfowitz. He said it on the Laura Ingram Show. The transcripts are available on the DOD news site:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030801-depsecdef0526.html

Q: And when did you start to think that perhaps Iraq had something to do with it?

Wolfowitz: I’m not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it. I think what the realization to me is -- the fundamental point was that terrorism had reached the scale completely different from what we had thought of it up until then. And that it would only get worse when these people got access to weapons of mass destruction which would be only a matter of time.

So it convinced me that we couldn’t continue to treat terrorism as a kind of law enforcement problem where you wait until after the thing happens and then you convict people based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and you put them in jail and that will somehow deal with terrorism. I mean that’s after all more or less the approach we’ve been following for 20 years or more. And even retaliation doesn’t work against that kind of threat that what you really got to do is, eliminate terrorist networks and eliminate terrorism as a problem. And clearly Iraq was one of the country -- you know top of the list of countries actively using terrorism as an instrument of national policy.


That oughta shut 'em up.