I was responding to a question about how Saddam supported terrorism. Try reading what was actually posted before your next bout of keyboard diarrhea. There was a reason I banned you from my comments section. It is on full display here, and in other posts here. As Anne Spudis pointed out, it is not necessary to do a core dump of every neuron firing in your brain.

Go back and read the concept of “the right wing” and it all might make sense.

I did. As usual, things you write rarely make sense.

Cheney has been a “conservative” all his life. the “neonut” (or neocon) came after his third heart attack.

That is absolutely nutty. He wasn’t a “conservative” all his life. He was a conservative. He remains one. One cannot become a “neocon” after having been a conservative all one’s life, regardless of their coronary condition. To think one can is only to flaunt one’s ignorance of the meaning of the word.

facts are tough things Rand

No one should have learned that hard lesson more than you. Yet you don’t.

Please stop blathering, Robert. It was possible to link Saddam to terrorism with no mention whatsoever of Atta, which I did.

Rand…please pay attention

It was maybe possible to link Saddam to Terrorism but that is not what the Administration chose as its main link. What they chose was a lie that Dick Cheney kept repeating over and over…and you must have bought.

Go back and read the concept of “the right wing” and it all might make sense.

Cheney has been a “conservative” all his life. the “neonut” (or neocon) came after his third heart attack. As General Scowcroft said “he became a person I did not recognize”

facts are tough things Rand

Robert G. Oler

You asked me for evidence that he supported terrorism…

gee

Saddam and terrorism.

The statement by Cheney that linked Saddam with terrorism that got the American people all excited (and willing to go to war) was that Cheney kept repeating that there were links to Atta and Iraqi intel…indeed Cheney (and Rice) kept claiming over and over that those links were certian…

when in fact they were not. No intellegence agency that the US traditionally relies on (like our own or those of major European powers) were confirming the meeting, even MI 6 was saying that it was bogus (as was our own CIA)…even the agency that originally reported it was backing away from it, as Cheney was saying it was more and more certian

This is Cheney on MTP

““It’s been pretty well confirmed that [Mohamed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”

what makes that interesting is that Cheney made that assertion on
December 9 2001…

the DCI told him on Sept 21 2001…

“”Our Prague office is skeptical about the report. It just doesn’t add up.”

so dont pull out some minor links that Saddam had to terrorism, and mostly he is just pooping on the IDF which they did on him as well.

Robert G. Oler

Yes. Only a role. The fact that he made a statement about the reason doesn’t change that.

Are you denying the whole smoking gun mushroom bs cloud campaign. Did you check what media “you” were checking then?

Did you read the State of the Union address? I’m pretty sure that was broadcast on other networks than Fox News. It was delivered by the president, not Paul Wolfowitz.

What is this fetish that when people are losing an argument, they have to trot out the evil Fox News?

I did not say Saddam was a Saint and Saddam was in part installed by us when it “fit” our interests. So these are real lame excuses for a war of this magnitude.

You asked me for evidence that he supported terrorism. I answer the question, and you raise the bar. and change the subject (and spout nonsense like “we installed Saddam”). I guess it’s a waste of time to discuss this with you any further. I agree that the thread should be locked, since no one wants to discuss actual space policy here. They just want to blame everything on the BusHitler.

We had been at war with Saddam’s regime since 1990, ..

this is off topic but it speaks to the state of reality you operate in.

We were no more at war with Saddam pre our invasion then we were with Nazi Germany when we were engaging their Uboats and they were sinking our DD’s…pre 10 Dec 1941.

Bush and his neocons exaggerated many reasons to invade Iraq…and you may not be able to deal with that (or the fact that they were neo cons) …but that is reality

Robert G. Oler

Go back to NSF and USF where you belong.

I am not an engineer. So I just believe what I read:

Says it all.