Article

2003-03-19 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-03-19 10:45 am|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So did Iraq plan, authorize, commit, or aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001????????????

Posted by Anonymous 3/19/2003 10:57:36 AM|| 3/19/2003 10:57:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Looks like a balloon to me...

Posted by jrosevear 2003-03-19 10:51:22|| 2003-03-19 10:51:22|| Front Page Top

#3 So did Iraq plan, authorize, commit, or aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001????????????

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-19 10:57:36|| 2003-03-19 10:57:36|| Front Page Top

#4 So did Iraq plan, authorize, commit, or aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001????????????

Aid? Yes. Directly and provably today? No. Stay tuned though.

Posted by Parabellum 2003-03-19 11:24:04|| 2003-03-19 11:24:04|| Front Page Top

#5 How did Iraq aid 9/11? Did Florida "aid" them too because a school taught people how to fly without landing? Hamburg because they lived there? The INS because it gave them visas?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-19 11:31:14|| 2003-03-19 11:31:14|| Front Page Top

#6 Read it more carefully (and/or read the original resolution). Basically, as I read it, W's required to certify (1) that diplomacy failed, and (2) that attacking Iraq won't make it impossible for us to continue to prosecute the GWoT (that's the "is consistent with" bit).

Posted by jrosevear 2003-03-19 11:37:27|| 2003-03-19 11:37:27|| Front Page Top

#7 jrosevear's right, Anon. Read it more closely. He's not saying Iraq is directly responsible for 9/11. He's saying it's a terrorist sponsor nation and will be treated as such, like the ones directly responsible for 9/11.

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-19 11:55:22|| 2003-03-19 11:55:22|| Front Page Top

#8 It's the same old trick. Mentioning two things in a sentence that have no connection still associates the two.
Re "terrorist sponsor nation"... the U.S. should be very busy the next decades. Sooner or later it will run out of money. Because other nations that are heavily invested in the U.S. economy might not want to "sponsor" the U.S. wars anymore. And with a 1.8 trillion deficit looming things might get rough for the U.S.
You know what you get when you try to squash a fly on a window with a sledgehammer?
Two things: A broken window... and a fly happily buzzing around.
Happy hunting USA

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-19 12:30:16|| 2003-03-19 12:30:16|| Front Page Top

#9 Check out Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie. And Jim Hoagland 3/9 WP piece. The theories haven't been disproven.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-19 12:34:37|| 2003-03-19 12:34:37|| Front Page Top

#10 Gawd, I love liberals! Point out they've misunderstood something, they'll call it a trick, and then they'll toss in some bizarre, off-the-wall metaphor that's supposed to pass as logic.

I stand here in awe of your superior reasoning!

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-19 12:58:08|| 2003-03-19 12:58:08|| Front Page Top

#11 Dar...here's a great quote I think you'll appreciate:

Trying to teach a liberal linear thinking is like trying to teach a pig to sing. At the end of your effort, all you'll have to show for it is a sore throat and a confused pig"
- Emperor Misha I.

Posted by mjh 2003-03-19 13:13:36|| 2003-03-19 13:13:36|| Front Page Top

16:38 alan matula
18:55 SparcVark
09:05 Alex
06:12 raptor
00:18 someone
23:34 Dishman
23:34 Jake
23:32 Jon
22:44 penguin
22:34 john
22:33 Old_Grouch
22:25 john
22:23 tu3031
22:18 tu3031
22:10 tu3031
22:10 john
22:08 Hungry Valley
21:54 TJ Jackson
21:48 TJ Jackson
21:46 TJ Jackson
21:39 tcc
21:35 Brian
21:28 Chuck
21:17 Annoying Old Guy