Like Scott said you knucleheads would not understand or believe anything President Bush says. Oh know you believe Al Gore who use massive amounts of electricity at his home and President Bush has a ranch that runs exclusively on alternative energy sources. Who is the expert? Salvage what color is the sky in your world?

Telling Iraq who they can and can’t do business with but also want to abandon this country to enemies? This is utterly outrageous

I hate to break it to you, but I’m pretty sure that Wikipedia is left leaning in their facts. Getting their facts to be objective is not their objective.

By the way, I’m a Republican and I still support Pres. Bush, and still support the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Curiously, though, I have also never been “polled” on my opinion. Hmmm…

[Did the MSM pick up on this? One would have thought this would be front page news even back them. But the media and anti-free-Iraq types had too much invested in their “Bush lied” rhetoric, and cried foul… stating the docs must be forgeries. To do otherwise would seriously affect their credibility. They were vested in perpetuating a lie that so many… like you… want to believe.]

Thanks, Mata, for your perceptiveness and ability to articulate the truth.

btw…
“In March 2008, the Pentagon released its study of some 600,000 documents captured in Iraq after the 2003 invasion (see 2008 Pentagon Report). The study “found no ’smoking gun’ (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”[18]”
CLASSIC example of Wiki or any source using a half quote to market not only a half truth, but a fact opposite of what the entire report said. The report cited goes on to list numerous documented examples of ties between Saddam’s regime and AQ groups. The wording in cited refers only to the meetings and communications alleged by the Clinton Admin and others that were held between the regime leaders and AQ senior council members. Interestingly enough…there’s a doc showing that kinda connection right here in the very OP to this thread (to say nothing of the 1998 Clinton Admin UBL indictment [sec4btw]). Yeah, Wiki misled w that quote. Curious, before buying someone else’s opinion based on a misrepresented, false, half quote…did ya bother to even look at the report it talked about?

Had we known he was planning the OK bombing, he would have been removed sooner.

And I see Aye Chi came in with much the same thoughts.

The Saudi princes fund charities, of which some of found to be funneling cash to AQ in March of 2003. Rather like Aye Chi states, were they aware of this when contributing? Not likely, as they ostrazied OBL from their midst. They do not knowing pass funds to his cause.

I guess spelling, as well are reading, are not your forte either. Or did you just never know how to spell McVeigh’s name?

Then by that thinking America turned a “blind eye and harbored” Timothy Mcvay.

Now that’s a stretch, even for you.

To prove that you’ll need to show that America knew what McVeigh was up to and chose to ignore it.

That’s what “turning a blind eye” means.

Yousef is just one place to look for the connections. You need to also look at Yasin. He’s the one who returned to Iraq after the bombing.

Then by that thinking America turned a “blind eye and harbored” Timothy Mcvay.

And Wiki is a fine source for established facts and one of those facts, confirmed by the American government, is that Saddam had no ties to terrorism against America. The House of Saud, the guys that your Dear Leader has over to his place for sleepovers on the other hand do.

Yousef lived and planned in Iraq, then entered the US on an Iraqi passport. Iraq was a revolving door of a cockroach nest for terrorists, including training camps.

Wiki? Pathetic… Wiki’s source links lead to other Wiki pages most of the time. However that aricle you quote does exist. Doesn’t matter that he wasn’t employed by the IIS. What mattered was that Saddam, just like the Taliban, harbored AQ and actually provided funding to his residence there. The world didn’t mind that the US coalition removed the Taliban regime for harboring AQ. But Saddam harboring AQ? Feh…

The only “discrediting” is done in your flawed thought patterns, Salvage. But like I said, our troops protect even the likes of you.

Wiki?

I know you didn’t just try and use Wiki as a valid source.

Your quoted portion changes from one last name in the first black section to different last name in the red section.

Come on. Even you are smart enough to know better than to use Wiki.

Here is Wiki’s entry on Abdul Rahman Yasin.

This entry contradicts the one that you posted which goes to show that you cannot trust Wiki for accurate info.

I am at work for just a little while longer and my research materials related to this matter are on my computer at home.

Allegations of Iraqi involvement

Among the documents released by the Pentagon was a captured audio file of Saddam Hussein speculating that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center had been carried out by Israel or American intelligence, or perhaps a Saudi or Egyptian faction. Saddam said that he did not trust the bomber Yasin, who was in Iraqi custody, because his testimony was too “organized.” The Pentagon study found that Yasin “was a prisoner, and not a guest, in Iraq.”[19] Mylroie denied that this was proof of Saddam’s non-involvement, claiming that “one common purpose of such meetings was to develop cover stories for whatever Iraq sought to conceal.”[20]

Granted it’s from Wikipedia but all the points are sourced. The connection between Iraq and any WTC attack has been discredited for a very long time. The only ones who keep on trying to make it are ones trying to justify the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Try again kids.