Get off the peace pipes, Saddam was fooling you.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=Iraq+ties+to+9%2F11

But the intelligence was being “fixed” because it was broken, in the British usage and sense of the word, like being repaired or glued.

Al Queda has ties to The United States of America too according to your logic. It was Al Queda that made claim to the attack on America, no? They did enter our country and boarded our airplanes, no?
Are you telling me that they did not have anyone inside the U.S. helping them? Yeah, right. We know for a fact they did.

So Tony, Now that means (according to your logic) the United States has “ties” to Al Queda, should Bushie attack the United States of America?

STEED, I don’t care what the Joint Resolution states. Nothing prepared by the Bushie administration is credible.
He’s a liar and has no credibility.

Iraqi involvement in 9/11

MIA and stolen property from the first Gulf War

and…

“He tried to kill my Daddy!”

Splitting hairs maybe, but I doubt Rush compiled them. His employees looking for a raise or to keep their job is a better bet.

British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: “There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.� [Iraq: Options Paper]

Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq’s Weapons Programs: “Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.� [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: “US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.� [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

“No Credible Evidence� On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.� [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]

Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that “there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).� [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]

I’ll accept your points, but you do realize that you are pissing into the wind on this one.

Technically, one may find linkages between many things that are unrelated (read as ‘Butterfly Effect’), but that is hardly a case for war.

And yet, the administration continues to practice flagrant deception in order to conflate the link between Iraq and 9/11.

If Americans are duped so easily, they deserve what they get.

-The notes were compiled by Rush, not created by him.

-I clearly stated that there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.

-I was stating that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Bush attacked Iraq as part of a broad war on terror, not in retribution for 9-11.

-Personally, I’m not entirely convinced that the ties were strong enough in and of themselves to warrant full-scale war, but I just wanted to show the evidence of the connections that some say didn’t exist.

You unbelievable shill.

Contrary to you what you dittoheads believe, Rush Limbaugh is certainly NOT a valid source for news.

Amazing that despite the 9/11 Commission repeatedly rejecting the notion that Saddam had ties to 9/11, you and your ilk prefer to parrot your right-wing echo chamber and prove how irrelevant you are to a serious discussion.

You are a moonbat, sir.

The country that should be causing him sleepless nights is the one that props up the US dollar: China.

We have been sold up a river without a paddle and China will eat our economic lunch within the next 5 years. And we will have no way to respond. Game over (for about 15 or 25 years).