What? Admission of a link? Can't be!
 

Keep in mind Russia opposed our invasion of Iraq.


Hmm link no workie, hold on. Try this.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1.html

Still not the right one, but it gives you the idea.

"First I voted for the 87 billion, but then I voted against it."

"It depends on what your definition of "is", is."

"I took the initiative in creating the internet."

"I have seen many white ni&&ers in my time too."

Good ole boy Democrat...Love sheets Byrd.

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/econazi_3.gif

"Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al-Qaida terror network"

Lacks a bit of substace, I'd say.

A little more substance here Staylo, doesn't bother you?

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said."

Uh Len, the above statement is right out of your link. No details given, just broad indictments exactly like we get from the Bush Adminsitration. What exactly is the evidence, and what level of scrutiny has it passed?

Maybe it means that they were planning on starting a Jack-in-the-Box franchise specializing in Islamic cusine in Manhatten:)

Given the credibility of evidence, I would say that that is equally plausible.

More quotes from your link:

"He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts."

"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits."

Hardly smoking gun material. :rolleyes:

http://batr.org/sitebuildercontent/s...g.w300h199.jpg

The Democrat Constituency.

I wonder what would happen if we never went to war, these attacks took place, and the dems found this intel. Hmm. No, I don't wonder. I'm glad we have a President that has the nuts to take action to protect us.

The $100B++ question is protect us from what? The NeoCons still can't tell us that.

Why are U arguing about the causes of the Irawrecky war..it's a done deal...move on....there are other problems facing the USA..the world has moved on if U all havn't

I love being contrary..It's fun!!

So, after the attack on the WTC in 1993, there were no more attacks on American soil for the rest of the Clinton Administration. Not withstanding that there were attacks in other countries as there have been under a number of administrations, both Dem and GOP; remove this red herring from the table, please, since the attacks on foreign soil continue.

The lack of domestic attacks from 1993 to 2001 could be taken, on face value, as evidence of an effective domestic protection policy.

Not saying that it is, just that a casual observer or a historian from the future could arrive at that conclusion, which is just a valid as those tossed around this board.

Enjoy!!!!

You think they started planning for 9/11 after Bush was sworn into office? Yea, run with that.

I don't know about all you guys, but I feel safe with our 'wartime President' at the helm:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=544095 4


Next country on the list... hmmm lets see there's one I'm thinking of which...
-Allowed entry & sheltered every single one of the 9/11 terrorists in the months (in some cases years) leading up to the attack.
-Offered & provided specialist training in operating the weaponry used in the attack.
-Manufactured the weapons.
-Made the weapons available to the terrorists.
-Failed in stopping the attacks, despite controlling the most powerful & sophisticated armed force on the planet.

Bombs away Georgie Boy!

How dare that evil Clinton let terrorists *think* about attacking!

Well, if you don't think that's a big deal, thank him for doing nothing prior to 9/11.

Actually, there are theories that surmise that exact scenario.
Irrespective of when they planned it, the fact remains that transfeering $XXXB from the US Treasury and giving it to Halliburton/Bechtel, et al hasn't made anyone safer.

There are scenarios that surmise Ted Kennedy is actually a goat, but they're not likely either.

There's probably more evidence that Ted Kennedy is a goat than Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
The Bush administration is literally fighting for it's life here. Wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis both came forward in the next couple of days with apocryphal evidence linking Saddam & Iraq to 9/11.