[MikeD]

i've always wondered: why does your custom title mention satInists?

It's because of my penchant for nitpicking grammar and spelling. No, really...HippieKai (under whatever his old screenname was) was posting, apparently drunk, and pledged his allegiance to Satin. So I ran with it, and before long, I'd declared myself the leader and demogouge of the Ridemonkey Satinists. I even had a few followers. Apparently the name stuck.

MD

 

[Toshi]

so the white masked guy is, uh, wearing a cape of satin? (why isn't it satan? just because kai spelt it that way the first time?)

 

[MikeD]

No, he's just a little Japanese noh-mask dude from a movie for 10-year old Japanese girls. Nothing to do with my title.

Yes, Kai spelled it satin, and I just dogged him for it for several pages. I thought satin-worship was funny. Now everyone thinks I'm a homo.

Hm, I guess it's good that I'm secure in my masculinity, now that I re-read this post.

Now, where's N8?

MD

 

[Silver]

Now, where's N8?

MD

Digging up some stuff on Newsmax and World Net Daily, I'm sure. He isn't going to answer your question anytime soon...

 

[Trond]

Brainwashing via the media does work, but we are no more susceptible to it than you. Europe is just more homogenized into popular liberal thought.

I read the best statement made by a journalist a few months ago: "Bush's popularity in Europe is so low that the Democrats could nominate a horse and it would still be cheered upon"

Pretty true actually. However, lots of articles are published which question Kerry and also conclude that their politics (B/K) are fairly similar when it comes down to it - on a day to day basis.

 

[Pedalist]

Birds of a feather flock together. I am sure that the two of them have done some bussiness with one another along the way.

 

[fluff]

Birds of a feather flock together. I am sure that the two of them have done some bussiness with one another along the way.

That's tantamount to treason! Saddam was a mate of Rumsfelds once...

 

[MikeD]

Digging up some stuff on Newsmax and World Net Daily, I'm sure. He isn't going to answer your question anytime soon...

Maybe he's actually *embarrassed* that he was apparently suckered, like 70% of America!

This was the best political used-car sale I've ever seen...by explicitly stating that there were connections between Iraq and Al-Queada (the strength of which were never discussed...by the same logic, we're in cahoots with China and Libera and Castro's Cuba, having at least once had diplomatic relations with them all), they KNEW Amercians would jump to the conclusion that Hussein=9/11. Then war was easy.

But the brilliant part was when the 9/11 commission stated that there were no links between Hussein and 9/11...the newscasters seemed poised for an uproarious attack on the lies that the country was fed, until the administration looked us and said, truthfully (at least in a literal sense), "we never said there was! I'm so sorry you thought that! But it looks like you've already signed on the dotted line, so this '58 Plymouth Rambler is all yours! And she's a beauty! That rust is just superficial... Sorry, no returns or refunds."

The Republicans are far better at getting what they want out of the American public than it seems the Democrats could ever be.

MD

 

[N8 v2.0]

Took some time to track these down and the are heaps more... I present for your review some, what the liberals would have you believe to be imaginary, Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (enjoy!):


1993

Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing
June 28, 1993
The Wall Street Journal
Reproduced Online: http://www.mondopolitico.com/discus/messages/441/1207.html?1070677043

1998

BIN LADEN, ATEF INDICTED IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT FOR AFRICAN BOMBINGS
November 4, 1998
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said. "
Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development
New York Times
November 5, 1998
Section A; Page 1; Column 2; Foreign Desk
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10910F73D5A0C768CDDA80994D0494D81

1999

Western Nightmare
February 6, 1999
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

Saddam's link to OBL
February 6, 1999
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

2001

Gunning for Saddam
October 18, 2001
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html

Saddam Controlled the Camp: The Iraqi Connection
November 11, 2001
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html

2002

Iraq's Tie to Al-Qaeda Terrorists, Airline Hijackings
January 7, 2002
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Reproduced Online: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/news/story/news20030315.html

Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy
September 5, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml

2003

The Unkwown - The C.I.A. and the Pentagon take another look at Al Qaeda and Iraq
February 3, 2003
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact

Al Qaeda, Iraq partners in terror -- Powell
February 5, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
April 27, 2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

Oil for Food Sales Seen As Iraq Tie To Al Qaeda
June 20, 2003
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.20/news2.html

Document links Saddam, bin Laden
June 25, 2003
http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

The AQ connection
July 11, 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/889jldct.asp

Growing Evidence of a Saddam - al-Qaeda Link
July 15, 2003
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8927

Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
September 1-8, 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

Memo shows Iraq, Iran tried to contact bin Laden
September 12, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030912-012437-3992r.htm

No Question About It: Saddam and the terrorists
September 19, 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

Iraq: A Federal Judge's Point of View
September 20, 2003
http://globalspecops.com/view.html

Iraq and al Qaeda - There's more evidence of a link than the critics admit
Septembe 23, 2003
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004046

The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections
September 25, 2003
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Saddam's Terror Ties - Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence
October 21, 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

Osama's Best Friend
November 3, 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp

Case Closed
November 24, 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
December 29, 2003-January 5, 2004
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

2004

Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
January 12, 2004
New York Times
Reproduced Online: http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200401/0142.html

Saddam's Ambassador to al-Qaeda
February 23, 2004
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12292

Interview with James Woolsey
March 23, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/23/ldt.00.html (scroll down for interview with Lou Dobbs and James Woolsey)

Al Qaeda's Poison Gas
April 29, 2004
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016

 

[N8 v2.0]

Iraq and al Qaeda
Who's campaigning to deny the links?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002520


..More...

Iraq's Ambassador To Turkey Recalled To Baghdad
[second link between Bin Laden and Iraq discovered]
AP | 11/29/01

ANKARA (AP)--Iraq's ambassador to Turkey - an intelligence officer who is said to have met with Osama bin Laden - is returning to Baghdad, officials said Thursday.

Iraq said Ambassador Farouk Hijazi would leave for Baghdad "at the end of the month," Foreign Ministry spokesman Huseyin Dirioz said.

The English-language Turkish Daily News newspaper said Hijazi had been called back before the end of his term. In Baghdad, the government announced Hijazi's recall as part of a general rotation of diplomats.

Hijazi, a former high-ranking intelligence officer, arrived in Turkey three years ago.

He reportedly met bin Laden, the main suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, in 1998 in Kandahar, a region in southeastern Afghanistan where bin Laden had training camps.

Iraq has denied any meeting took place.

The alleged meeting is the second suspected link between Iraqi intelligence and those implicated in the attacks. Mohamed Atta, believed to be one of the hijackers of a plane that slammed into the World Trade Center, is said to have met in April with an Iraqi intelligence agent in the Czech capital Prague.

 

[MikeD]

Took some time to track these blah blah

N8, I've always tried to respect you and your views, but now I'm forced to say you're an idiot.

We're talking about links between Hussein and 9/11, not links between Hussein and Al-Queada.

This is the very confusion that the administration pushed on the country...but you'll note they made NO connection between 9/11 and Hussein, as Bush explicitly stated many times when the commission report was released.

If you want to say, as I'm sure you do, that a link between Hussein and Al-Queada implies a link between Hussein and 9/11, then you also must see that this country's long-standing aid to and ties to Osama Bin Laden link the US to the atrocities of 9/11.

MD

 

[N8 v2.0]

Mikey D,

Of course Saddam is linked to 9-11 through his association with Al_Q. Was Saddam ultimately responsible for 9-11? No. But he probably helped facilitate aspects of it either directly or indirectly. Pres Bush has stated Saddam was not involved in 9-11 so I don't get where you are headed. If you are saying that the War in Iraq is not part of the War on Terror then you have your head buried in a sandbar in the River of Denial.


Evidence links Saddam to 9-11, Inhofe says
The Daily Oklahoman | 4-15-2004 | Associated Press


TULSA -- Sen. Jim Inhofe says evidence exists linking deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The Oklahoma Republican said Wednesday that he plans a speech on the Senate floor next week to outline the connection despite the Bush administration's position that no such link exists.

Inhofe says the president looked a "little insecure" and "beaten up" during his televised news conference Tuesday night that came after an increase in violence and insurgency in occupied Iraq.

"The biggest mistake the administration made is (the president) let (Sen.) Ted Kennedy and others sucker him into dropping the ball on the connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11," the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World's Washington bureau.

If Bush had outlined the evidence linking Saddam and the attacks, the public would better understand the case for going to war in Iraq, said Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

President Bush, in justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said Saddam has had a long relationship with the al-Qaida terror network responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Critics have said that implied to the American people that Saddam, who is in U.S. custody, had a role in the suicide hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people.

But Bush said in September that there is no evidence that Saddam was involved.

 

[llkoolkeg]

I've noticed the air is so much fresher and my agitation level so less elevated in forums OTHER than the political one. My blood pressure is probably lower and I may live an extra month now that THIS camel rarely works his nose under the edge of this particular tent. Maybe I should start drinking lots of green tea and carry around one of those squishy balls, too.

 

[MikeD]

Seriously. I have to post again on this. Even reading a sampling of the articles you posted, not ONE that I've seen links Hussein to the 9/11 plot. They do provide evidence that there were diplomatic ties, possibly growing ones, possibly not, between Al-Queada and Hussein. But what we're marvelling at is the figure, whether it's really 70% or even lower, of Americans who think that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 somehow...or, seemingly like you, can't tell the difference.

MD

 

[N8 v2.0]

Seriously. I have to post again on this. Even reading a sampling of the articles you posted, not ONE that I've seen links Hussein to the 9/11 plot. They do provide evidence that there were diplomatic ties, possibly growing ones, possibly not, between Al-Queada and Hussein. But what we're marvelling at is the figure, whether it's really 70% or even lower, of Americans who think that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 somehow...or, seemingly like you, can't tell the difference.

MD

I think you are sadly mistake if you think most Americans think Saddam was responsible for 9-11.

What most folks do think (and rightly so) is that Saddam certainly was involved with Al_Q prior to 9/11 and most certianlly provided support in their cause.

 

[MikeD]

Mikey D,

Of course Saddam is linked to 9-11 through his association with Al_Q. Was Saddam ultimately responsible for 9-11? No.

OK, well, that was the original discussion point.

Now, why did we go after Hussein, rather than the people who WERE directly involved? We attacked Afghanistan, but didn't actually do anything but disperse the Taliban and Al-Queada. We pushed many into hiding, but didn't exterminate the nest, if you will. Heck, it took us so long to attack Afghanistan that they were mostly gone by the time we got there.

'The war on terror' is a spurious term; it says nothing while purporting to say everything. It's a blanket for doing whatever you want to whomever you decide to label or associate with 'terror.' And while such things are political niceties or necessities, well, I'm not a politician. I have a different background, and prefer to look at 'war' realistically instead of politically. That certainly makes my views unpopular with most people, and I guess it's why I'm nitpicking on the Internet instead of running for office.

MD

 

[MikeD]

I think you are sadly mistake if you think most Americans think Saddam was responsible for 9-11.

read the paper today and it mentioned a Newsweek poll, which found that 42% of americans believe that there was a direct link between saddam hussein and the 9/11 attacks.

That's cuz there is a direct link.

Unless... you happen to believe in the Easter Bunny and Sammy Claws.

Feeling flip-floppy today, N8?

 

[fluff]

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said. "
Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development
New York Times
November 5, 1998

Since when has an indictment been evidence?

Plus which it is amusing to see you using the hated liberal NY Times as your reference.

 

[N8 v2.0]

OK, well, that was the original discussion point.

Now, why did we go after Hussein, rather than the people who WERE directly involved? We attacked Afghanistan, but didn't actually do anything but disperse the Taliban and Al-Queada. We pushed many into hiding, but didn't exterminate the nest, if you will. Heck, it took us so long to attack Afghanistan that they were mostly gone by the time we got there.

'The war on terror' is a spurious term; it says nothing while purporting to say everything. It's a blanket for doing whatever you want to whomever you decide to label or associate with 'terror.' And while such things are political niceties or necessities, well, I'm not a politician. I have a different background, and prefer to look at 'war' realistically instead of politically. That certainly makes my views unpopular with most people, and I guess it's why I'm nitpicking on the Internet instead of running for office.

MD

We didn't attack Afghanistan, we attacked Al Q and their Taliban allies.

Yes the War on Terror is a broad term. That's why were are in the Phillipines and other places where terrorists operate out of.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Feeling flip-floppy today, N8?

There is a direct link to Saddam and 9-11... it called Al Queda.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Since when has an indictment been evidence?

Plus which it is amusing to see you using the hated liberal NY Times as your reference.

Haha!... true dat...

 

[MikeD]

We didn't attack Afghanistan, we attacked Al Q and their Taliban allies.

aka the de facto government of Afghanistan, which, by the way, had far broader support than most sources report. Most news sources, especially liberal type ones, tend to think that attitudes in Kabul represent the 'average Afghan,' which is far from the truth.

What you and I see as a 'better' life might not be so for the Afghan, who, while fearing the Taliban, fears it as a living implementation of God's rule on earth, and doesn't despise it, despite his (or even her) fear. A hard life followed by salvation appeals more to a truly religious (what I might call ignorant) person than a decadent life of relative ease.

 

[MikeD]

There is a direct link to Saddam and 9-11... it called Al Queda.

Rhetoric. 'Direct link between' and 'responsible for' were used synonymously in the beginning of this discussion; can't rhetorically separate them now.

But again, you've put forth a perfect example of the used-car sale tactics that were pulled on this country, or, rather, by which the country allowed itself to be convinced.

MD

 

[fr-rider]

are americans really that ignorant?



Yes. And it appears that 42% are ignorant. Pretty close to the 50% of the population that I think is plain old stupid.

What percentage are you in?