http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/international/middleeast/21INTE.html?th The group called "Ansar-al-Islam" that before the war Bush claimed was closely allied with Al Qaida and Bin Laden and was inside Iraq appears to have "significant" differences with Al Qaida and is NOT cooperating with them inside Iraq. In other words the two groups are not close allies and are not working together. Considering that also Bush has repeatedly blamed terrorist attacks inside Iraq on Al Qaida, even though the US military in Iraq says there is little evidence to supports that (it appears most terrorism and partisan attacks in Iraq come from Iraqis themselves), and with this newest revelation, is there any reason to believe anything Bush says about Iraq? Answer: NO. Every statement from here on from Bush on Iraq you can assume is self-serving and aimed at winning in November.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. ... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Can anyone guess who said this?
"The President of the United States, I believe, would not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise. ... There is no massive conspiracy that I've seen ... and I believe that's why we're going to look at all the facts." Sen. John McCain.
Your link wants me to register, so I cannot read your story as of yet. Didn't you always say that this group operated in land not controlled by Saddam so did not count as a reason for the war anyway. Also is this the same NYTIMES that ran the report "about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist inside Iraq, admitting that U.S. forces are winning as he reached out to top al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan to plead for assistance." Are they going to back away from this new story later as well?
Well since it looks like no one is going to take a guess as to who said the above quote i will just tell you. . . *Drumroll* Albert Gore
Oh a news story from the NYTimes....oh sure they are believable. This is the most liberal newspaper in America folks. This is the same paper that buried any good news story about the Iraq war on the back pages and only showed grief and dispair, right up until the Saddam statue was toppled. The newspaper is shit and you know it. When you wanna support your opinion next time, use something that is actually reputable. Thank you.
So McCain is just another biased right winger. So we can assume his opinion means nothing, since he has already made up his mind before looking at the facts.
Now I have to disagree with that description of Senator McCain. In fact, I think the country would have been better off had McCain won the Republican nomination in 2000. He was definitely more qualified that W. Bush to be President. And I don't consider Senator McCain to be a right-winger at all.
McCain leans far more to the left than the right. IF McCain is such a great defender of freedom why did he sponsor legislation that denies freedom of speech to organization and actually provides jail time for those who excercise that freedom in violation of that statute? http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=60
