Comments on: Ignoring Senate Intel Report, Snow Repeats Lie That Saddam Had A Relationship With Zarqawi

By: jasbas

jasbas — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:16:43 +0000

To: Flaco, Respect is earned not automatically gotten thru position.
You never gave and still don.t give President Clinton. He was a President.
Bush is a failure as a President. He has more deaths on his watch, than any other President since Johnson. Reality is a Bitch !!!!!!!!1

P.S. Plus he’s STUPID 11111

By: In plane sight » The Road to Surfdom

In plane sight » The Road to Surfdom — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:18:43 +0000

[...] The other point about conspiracy theories is that the Bush Administration has perpetrated their fair share of them. From the constant “theories” about links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, Mohammad Atta’s Prague meetings, Zarqawi and Saddam, Niger uranium, and even their deliberately misleading exaggerations about Saddam’s WMD, they have hyped everything about the invasion of Iraq and the “war on terror” to the max. Dick Cheney is postively loony tunes about some of this stuff (but then again, he’s really a robot and I know because I know someone who knows the guy who designed the power source for his brain). [...]

By: Tom Joad

Tom Joad — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:17:04 +0000

What an absolute TOOL!

By: JPark

JPark — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:21:57 +0000

Bern, I rarely wonder why a reporter doesn’t ask obvious questions anymore. I do wonder why more people don’t know that Zarqawi was being harbored by our nominal allies.

By: JPark

JPark — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:19:46 +0000

ren, you are an idiot. Please…if you are going to attack others for their use of the English language you had better use it flawlessly. I won’t use the word retard because…you are the type of scum to use it. I will just call you developmentally disabled.

By: JPark

JPark — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:13:22 +0000

2. Ben Laden claims to have declared war on us because we were in Saudi Arabia – enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq

That is rich…we aren’t in the holy land anymore are we? Bunch of weasly little appeasers. That Ben really pulled one over on you.

By: Bern

Bern — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:12:43 +0000

In that situation with Snow (and every other Repug that pushes this crap), how is it not one of the reporters brings up that Zarqawi was located in the Kurdish-controlled north where we ruled the skies, we knew where he was and the administration passed on at least 3 opportunities to take him out? These guys only play for the soundbite where they present the strawman argument (”we’re not claiming they didn’t share a corner office. . .”) instead of being forced to answer the question honestly.
What a reporter needs to say is “From almost all accounts, including the (REPUBLICAN-led) Senate report on the matter, this administration had a better understanding than Saddam of Zarqawi’s exact whereabouts prior to the US invasion of Iraq – why didn’t we at least attempt to take him out?
Oh, and when Snow talks about not wanting to get into the vagueries of the Senate report, they need to ask him what he finds to be vague.

By: JPark

JPark — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:10:30 +0000

Hehe, American had to repeat his lie (#18 and #21). Irony?

By: idahogie

idahogie — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:00:44 +0000

The analogy with Ted Kaczynski doesn’t even go far enough. The US Government’s relationship with the Unabomber was even stronger, because he was operating in a part of the country that was under the US Government’s control. Saddam’s link to Zarqawi was even more tenuous.

By: Dave von Ebers

Dave von Ebers — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:09:35 +0000

I still wanna know ’bout Zarqawi’s peg leg. According to th’ Bushwhacker, Zarqawi had his leg all amputated ‘n stuff right there in Bagdad, right under Saddam’s nose! Yet, when we killt him to death, no one ever mentioned the peg leg … even though th’ US performed an autopsy ‘n all.

Kinda makes ya wonder whether th’ President just makes stuff up.

By: impeachcheneythenbush

impeachcheneythenbush — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:53:59 +0000

There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country. And I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. Thatâ€™s the relationship.

Ok…the 911 terrorists were in the U.S., some for well over a year. In many cases, one of the federal groups (CIA, FBI, INS) knew they were here. So should that also be interpreted as the U.S. “having a relationship” with them?

This administration has CONSISTENTLY tried to tie Saddam together with al-queda and the 911 attacks. Just as Bush’s speech on Monday night morphed 911 and Iraq, so have they done for the past five years. Even today, according to a recent poll, 43% of Americans still believe that Iraq was involved in 911. Where the hell does the Bush administration think those people got THAT idea? (As if they aren’t quite aware of HOW they got that idea!)

By: Bruce Gorton

Bruce Gorton — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:58:32 +0000

Flaco

Bush is president of America right?

Hurricane Katrina happened when and where precisely?

9/11 Happened where?

Whose soldiers invaded a country which had thus far not proven to be a threat?

Who called an invasion based on an increasing list of things which have that far been just plain wrong?

Where does the buck stop? Oh yeah, with the nearest Democrat.

By: Jay Randal

Jay Randal — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:51:28 +0000

Zarqawi was a made-up CIA creation, just the same as Osama himself!

By: TerrytheTurtle

TerrytheTurtle — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:48:58 +0000

#110 – Gregor – I see your test.

By: TerrytheTurtle

TerrytheTurtle — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:48:24 +0000

#99 OK Ren, why don’t you check ‘causus belli’ out – I’ll give you a clue – its not english. The other stuff: yeah, bad shift key, small keys and dodgy space bar – Treo 650 nearing end of life.

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:40:35 +0000

Test

By: nanlichi

nanlichi — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:49:27 +0000

Flaco, pendejo,

Your pleading for tolerance of Bush’s mistakes is ridiculous. “He’s just a guy like me, like you, who occasionally get shitfaced and pisses in the closet. So what? Give the guy a break!”

It was no mistake. Chimpfuck invaded Iraq for his personal vendetta, not for the USA. This is Bush’s war, not ours. He is the single most evil person in our lifetime, in our history.

To continue to defend that hateful bastard makes you the same anti-American. Move away please, all you religious freaks and populate another continent. Your ignorance is threatening the rihgt to life for the rest of us.

By: Chaitanya

Chaitanya — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:47:45 +0000

Zarqawi was in Iraq. So Saddam had a relation with Al-qaeda. On similar lines, Bin Laden was in the US, the al-qaeda operatives were/are in the US. So al-qaeda has a relationship with the US govt.
Someone teach this nut the basics of logic. Seems like he has grow old, but not grown up.

By: irishdave3

irishdave3 — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 03:40:47 +0000

Sometimes it seems like you hate Murka…The relationship between the Gubmit and the Unabomber is super-secrect doubleback classified…(thats what Dicky Aqrmitage sez in a “gossipy sorta way) I am just sayin The Terra ist win! LOL

By: onion

onion — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 03:21:42 +0000

pathological

haha – that’s a good one!

now now, no namecalling!