Comments on: WSJ defends discredited claims of Saddam-al Qaeda ‘collaboration.’

By: www.regimeofterror.com

www.regimeofterror.com — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:43:56 +0000

Can someone on this board please explain to me what they mean by link or connection?

I’d consider funding, arming, training and harboring al Qaeda affiliates (which is what the report says Saddam did) something worth being worried about. Does that mean we had to invade? Of course that’s debate and certainly an argument can be made that something else could have been done but Saddam’s Iraq was recruiting, training and arming thousands of Iraqi and non-Iraqi suicide bombers and terrorists and plotted attacks on U.S. military bases, embassies and naval vessels.

There is nothing “liberal” or “progressive” about dismissing what Saddam was up to out of hand.

By: addicted44

addicted44 — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:12:46 +0000

And this is before Rupert has bought them!

By: squidbilly

squidbilly — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:53:39 +0000

Denial is such a wonderful thing. I guess the WSJ readers are true “beleivers.”

By: ennealogic

ennealogic — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:40:03 +0000

When they can’t spin it, they just turn it upside down and pretend nobody notices.

By: Chocolate Jesus

Chocolate Jesus — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:41:29 +0000

we have armed the fatah party. we’ve armed turks we’ve designated terrorists. we’ve armed shia and sunni death squads that kidnap each other and drill holes in each others heads.

do you deny any of this exlexlia?

By: Chocolate Jesus

Chocolate Jesus — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:39:38 +0000

“…provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arabl nationalists in the region. …. provided training and motivation for vioent revolutionary Islamists in the region…was demonstrably willing to use terrorism to achieve its goals ”

exley…please please please tell me that you beleive everywhere in the above sentence you see “…” you couldnt put in “the united states” and makes a correct and true sentence.

wake up my naive friend. there are no good guys.

By: VerbalKint

VerbalKint — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:28:51 +0000

The WSJ editorial board and the pages of lies they print every day are relentless global warming deniers, to the point of absurdity, so it isn’t any surprise when they challenge reality on any other subject, including the war that they fervently supported. The editorial page is strictly an operation being run in collaboration with the Bush propaganda ministry.

By: JosephW

JosephW — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:17:23 +0000

I suppose then, by his spurious logic (provided wholly from a grant by the Wall Street Journal), Exley NOW admits that al-Qaeda was started by the United States through the Reagan administration’s CIA.
Sorry, Ex, but you can’t use one quote of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” variety without applying it in situations you don’t like.

By: elizajane

elizajane — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:05:53 +0000

The Late POPE JOHN PAUL CALLED BUSH anti-christ …and said the end of days are near and he wished he was younger so he could make a stand against these demonic people ….This was online …The WASHINGTON POST HAD THIS ARTICLE ….online …a word to the wise …

By: blue state bob

blue state bob — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:43:58 +0000

Exley:

I thought you were on a meth bender, got off it I see at least enough to drop your crap here. Obviously made you even more brain dead. Again, the terrorists aren’t going to target your trailer, so take off the diaper and get out of mom’s basement and get a job. I’m sick of supporting white trash welfare recipients like you.

By: www.regimeofterror.com

www.regimeofterror.com — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:35:15 +0000

You guys are dead right on a lot of points but Saddam was arming, funding, training and harboring numerous anti American terrorist groups. Some of them he was giving orders to kill Americans to and some were linked to al Qaeda (EIJ is considered the same as al Qaeda with a different name and makes up 2/3 of al Qaeda’s leadership).

There are plenty of reasons to oppose this costly war and the way it’s been handled and explained. There is no need to overreach on this point. Saddam supported Islamic and other anti American terrorist groups, still doesn’t mean the invasion was necessary.

By: celtic cynic

celtic cynic — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:25:36 +0000

The WSJ used to be a decent paper. The direction of editorial content has gone to hell with the new ownership of Rupert Murdoch. How soon will it have new, expanded coverage of Hollywood bimbos, girls gone wild, secret sex lives of …?

By: Doc Rock

Doc Rock — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:21:37 +0000

This is one of the “new” Republican noise machine mantras which will be replayed until the sheep can recite it and have taken it as gospel.

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:05:23 +0000

More…

“Saddam Hussein was demonstrably willing to use terrorism to achieve his goals. Using this tactical method was a strategic choice of Saddam’s, often requiring direct and indirect cooperation with movements, organizzations, and individuals possessing, in some cases diametrically opposed long-term goals.

An example of indirect cooperations is the movement led by Osama bin Laden.”

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:01:35 +0000

“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.” …

“Saddam provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arabl nationalists in the region. Osama bin Laden provided training and motivation for vioent revolutionary Islamists in the region. … These similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.”

By: blue state bob

blue state bob — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:10:54 +0000

March 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Lemme see….who just bought the WSJ? Rupert Murdoch?
Do tell.

Recommend (2) | Report Abuse

The WSJ’s editorial page has always been a right wing cesspool, it’s the naked Bear Sterns girl on page 6 when you will know old Rubert has put his stamp on the WSJ.

By: Buckie Boy

Buckie Boy — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:54:40 +0000

The Cons will believe a lie before the truth anyday, if it suits them.

Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09

By: DieNowForPeace

DieNowForPeace — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:54:27 +0000

EdgeOnIt Says:

Attn troll: this is a progressive news/blog site.

You’re free to stay away all the time.

By: Mia Kulper

Mia Kulper — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:53:28 +0000

How much longer can democracy survive when its elite media is allowed to lie at will to millions of citizens day after day?

By: gumby

gumby — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:49:41 +0000

EdgeOnIt said In a sense, this site is dependant upon the war in Iraq, but I can’t figure out why!? In the context that the evidence presented, to the Court of the American People, was false, WHY is ThinkProgress.org engaged in an all out debate about HOW FALSE IT WAS? Is this site self-justifying the publication of the (fact of) war in Iraq? Or rather, is the historic mission of our media really to report on PROGRESS, begun by our government? Please get with a plan!!!
What in the hell are you talking about?