Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

No shite huh, even the brain dead knew this, but not these two...fvcking losers!!!

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” Cheney said during an interview Monday night with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200906 ... tico/23228

I just posted the same thing.

Yup - no shiite.


CONKS - front and center.

I thought this was already common knowledge. Or really it seemed common knowledge before the war.

slycat wrote:I thought this was already common knowledge. Or really it seemed common knowledge before the war.

Not really - many seemed to think that is why we invaded them.

That Greta Van Cesspool with her stretched face skin just gives me afternoon wood, how 'bout you?

dbackjon wrote:

slycat wrote:I thought this was already common knowledge. Or really it seemed common knowledge before the war.

Not really - many seemed to think that is why we invaded them.

Yes.

It was one one the reasons given, along with WMD's and liberating the Iraqi people.

BlueHen86 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Not really - many seemed to think that is why we invaded them.

Yes.

It was one one the reasons given, along with WMD's and liberating the cheering Iraqi people.

Edited for enhanced accuracy.

Wedgebuster wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Yes.

It was one one the reasons given, along with WMD's and liberating the cheering, flower tossing, Iraqi people.

Edited for enhanced accuracy.

FIFM (fixed it for myself)

Like I have said in other threads. I remember seeing on Fox News a former military guy named Bob Levaqua (sp) and he said we were invading because Saddam had WMD's and although he would never use them on the US, he most certainly would have sold them to someone who would.

He also stated the goal was to bookend Iran in between Afghanistan and Iraq.

I never ever heard that we invaded Iraq because they participated in 9/11. Maybe I just caught the right guy on the right day.

The war was still justified.

[youtube][/youtube]

Well if it wasn't out there before, it is now. I just googled "bob levaqua fox news" and up came a link to my thread on CS.com!!!!



So, that's how it works. Just flood message boards with whatever you feel like saying and then you automatically have a reference.

I am now afraid to google, "Capn anal beads".

SeattleGriz wrote:

Well if it wasn't out there before, it is now. I just googled "bob levaqua fox news" and up came a link to my thread on CS.com!!!!


So, that's how it works. Just flood message boards with whatever you feel like saying and then you automatically have a reference.

I am now afraid to google, "Capn anal beads".

That's pretty funny.

Gil Dobie wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

SeattleGriz wrote:Like I have said in other threads. I remember seeing on Fox News a former military guy named Bob Levaqua (sp) and he said we were invading because Saddam had WMD's and although he would never use them on the US, he most certainly would have sold them to someone who would.

He also stated the goal was to bookend Iran in between Afghanistan and Iraq.

I never ever heard that we invaded Iraq because they participated in 9/11. Maybe I just caught the right guy on the right day.

The war was still justified.

So but what you are both saying is, that you are outraged?

SeattleGriz wrote:Like I have said in other threads. I remember seeing on Fox News a former military guy named Bob Levaqua (sp) and he said we were invading because Saddam had WMD's and although he would never use them on the US, he most certainly would have sold them to someone who would.

He also stated the goal was to bookend Iran in between Afghanistan and Iraq.

I never ever heard that we invaded Iraq because they participated in 9/11. Maybe I just caught the right guy on the right day.

The war was still justified.

I don't think so.

1. Iraq didn't have WMD's
2. The UN had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, thus making it harder for Saddam to start a WMD program.
3. We already had no fly zones in Iraq making them less of a threat to their neighbors.
4. Iraq had no connection to 9/11 (at least none that anyone is aware of).
5. I don't think freeing the Iraqi people from a despot is worth going to war for - if the Iraqi people wanted him gone, they could have overthrown him themselves. The Iranian people overthrew a U.S. supported despot, certainly the Iraqi's could overthrow one that didn't have our support.
6. If Iran was the threat why not just invade them instead, rather than "bookend" them.
7. It distracted us from the war in Afghanistan, where the real threat is.

BlueHen86 wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Like I have said in other threads. I remember seeing on Fox News a former military guy named Bob Levaqua (sp) and he said we were invading because Saddam had WMD's and although he would never use them on the US, he most certainly would have sold them to someone who would.

He also stated the goal was to bookend Iran in between Afghanistan and Iraq.

I never ever heard that we invaded Iraq because they participated in 9/11. Maybe I just caught the right guy on the right day.

The war was still justified.

I don't think so.

1. Iraq didn't have WMD's
2. The UN had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, thus making it harder for Saddam to start a WMD program.
3. We already had no fly zones in Iraq making them less of a threat to their neighbors.
4. Iraq had no connection to 9/11 (at least none that anyone is aware of).
5. I don't think freeing the Iraqi people from a despot is worth going to war for - if the Iraqi people wanted him gone, they could have overthrown him themselves. The Iranian people overthrew a U.S. supported despot, certainly the Iraqi's could overthrow one that didn't have our support.
6. If Iran was the threat why not just invade them instead, rather than "bookend" them.
7. It distracted us from the war in Afghanistan, where the real threat is.

#1) I would imagine all those dead Kurds would disagree with your statement, but since they were all killed by WMD's they can't say a thing.
#2) So why the need for Saddam to stonewall and deny access? Although I do remember Col Hogan stating he had friends who were "jacked" to expose Saddam and they couldn't find anything, so I don't doubt all evidence was destroyed before the US invaded. Pretty easy to throw chemical and biological weapons in all those fires around Baghdad and destroy any evidence.
#3) I got nothin on this one and don't think it really applies to why we invaded. This war was always between the US and Saddam.
#4) I agree
#5) Didn't he gas the crap out of the Kurds after the first war? That's what you got for crossing Saddam - extreme retribution. They were all afraid to do crap, with all the minders and secret police.
#6) Iraq was a much easier target than Iran.
#7) Afghanistan is not the issue, it is the tribal areas of Pakistan. Very hard to invade a country that is supposed to be our allly. In fact, didn't Pakistan just recently say they were going to really buckle down and work on the Taliban?

Not disagreeing with you in this post, as much as I am trying to convey my thoughts on the issue.

SeattleGriz wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I don't think so.

1. Iraq didn't have WMD's
2. The UN had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, thus making it harder for Saddam to start a WMD program.
3. We already had no fly zones in Iraq making them less of a threat to their neighbors.
4. Iraq had no connection to 9/11 (at least none that anyone is aware of).
5. I don't think freeing the Iraqi people from a despot is worth going to war for - if the Iraqi people wanted him gone, they could have overthrown him themselves. The Iranian people overthrew a U.S. supported despot, certainly the Iraqi's could overthrow one that didn't have our support.
6. If Iran was the threat why not just invade them instead, rather than "bookend" them.
7. It distracted us from the war in Afghanistan, where the real threat is.

#1) I would imagine all those dead Kurds would disagree with your statement, but since they were all killed by WMD's they can't say a thing.
#2) So why the need for Saddam to stonewall and deny access? Although I do remember Col Hogan stating he had friends who were "jacked" to expose Saddam and they couldn't find anything, so I don't doubt all evidence was destroyed before the US invaded. Pretty easy to throw chemical and biological weapons in all those fires around Baghdad and destroy any evidence.
#3) I got nothin on this one and don't think it really applies to why we invaded. This war was always between the US and Saddam.
#4) I agree
#5) Didn't he gas the crap out of the Kurds after the first war? That's what you got for crossing Saddam - extreme retribution. They were all afraid to do crap, with all the minders and secret police.
#6) Iraq was a much easier target than Iran.
#7) Afghanistan is not the issue, it is the tribal areas of Pakistan. Very hard to invade a country that is supposed to be our allly. In fact, didn't Pakistan just recently say they were going to really buckle down and work on the Taliban?

Not disagreeing with you in this post, as much as I am trying to convey my thoughts on the issue.

#1 & #5) The Kurds were gassed in 1988 - before the first Gulf War. The UN resolutions demanded that Saddam get rid of his WMD's - which it seems he did by 2003. Also, the no fly zones imposed after the first Gulf War prevented Saddam from gassing them again. I don't think you can use the Kurds as a reason for the 2003 invasion.

I've gone on record many times that entering the Iraq war was a mistake. But so is leaving prematurely. Two wrongs don't make a right.

AZGrizFan wrote:I've gone on record many times that entering the Iraq war was a mistake. But so is leaving prematurely. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree 100%.

BlueHen86 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I've gone on record many times that entering the Iraq war was a mistake. But so is leaving prematurely. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree 100%.

I always pegged you for a very smart man.

dbackjon wrote:

slycat wrote:I thought this was already common knowledge. Or really it seemed common knowledge before the war.

Not really - many seemed to think that is why we invaded them.

Well I never once associated Saddam with 9/11.

If I rememebr right the reasons for the war went something like this:
1) WMDs
2) 9/11 connection/terrorists
3) Liberating Iraqi people
4) Protecting American freedom

All governmental bullshit
ITS ALL ABOUT THE OIL AND 90s HATE OF SADDAM

Finally found a story about this so called "know it all" I have been quoting.

His last name is actually, Bevelacqua and he spoke with that Commie David Corn about how unhappy he was with the war. He was a Fox analyst.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/1104

Bevelacqua, who supported going to war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant and a threat to stability in the region but not a direct threat to the United States, is clearly unhappy with the whole contracting process under way in Iraq

haHA! I feel like Will Ferrel in the upcoming movie, Land of the Lost when he says, "Matt Lauer can suck it" He really does exist.

I told you Fox news doubters so !!! Fox news is REAL news bitches! I got a link on google if you doubt me!

The only connection between 9/11 and Saddam was that during the 2003-2005 period, liberals tried (pretty successfully to those gullible enough to buy it) to re-write recent history by saying that a 9/11-Iraq connection was our motivation for the war.

I don't recall the Bush Administration making that claim, maybe somebody can post me a link. Perhaps Cheney was just stating something that we knew all along, for those moonbats like Rosie O'Donnell who still think that 9-11 was perpetrated by the CIA, Hare Krishnas and Capn Cat.

Seems like Colin Powell, during his speeches to the UN, mentioned something about WMDs? He is portrayed as the pillar of integrity these days, so was he lying then? Oh, sorry, I forgot- Bush threw some white-out on the intel reports before handing them to Powell.

How many dead Muslims so far? We need to take off the gloves and make this war on Islam the real deal.

CID1990 wrote:The only connection between 9/11 and Saddam was that during the 2003-2005 period, liberals tried (pretty successfully to those gullible enough to buy it) to re-write recent history by saying that a 9/11-Iraq connection was our motivation for the war.

I don't recall the Bush Administration making that claim, maybe somebody can post me a link. Perhaps Cheney was just stating something that we knew all along, for those moonbats like Rosie O'Donnell who still think that 9-11 was perpetrated by the CIA, Hare Krishnas and Capn Cat.

Seems like Colin Powell, during his speeches to the UN, mentioned something about WMDs? He is portrayed as the pillar of integrity these days, so was he lying then? Oh, sorry, I forgot- Bush threw some white-out on the intel reports before handing them to Powell.

How many dead Muslims so far? We need to take off the gloves and make this war on Islam the real deal.

God, what a dumb fucker.