Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
OFGS, Hippikos. Wasn't al-Zarquawi's hospital stay in Baghdad enough evidence of the connection? Is it not so that the troubles in the world are largely going to come from the failed states, most of which are to be found in a contiguous belt straight through Araby and central Africa? Is it not so that the failed states easily pup out antidemocracy activists -- id est, terrorists? Was Ba'athist Iraq anything but a typical example of a failing/failed, despotic state?
I see the connections -- regardless of how obtuse you may care to be. As you know, no conspiracy theory makes it with me, either -- and here you are, trying unscrupulously and uncritically (at best) to purvey one. You do not persuade, sir.
|
Yep, that's what Cheney said and of course you think whatever the VP says is true, right? Cause you suck up all the WH is excreting about Iraq. I'm sure you fully believed the WMD stories and Powell's bogus speech in the UN.
Also Cheney still was claiming, even after the story already proved to be a hoax, that Iraq secret agents were meeting with Atta in Prague. When will you realise that all US intelligence about Iraq were bogus and misused in order to convince gullible people like you? Who's making conspiracies here? Cheney or me?
Truth is more straight forward. US intelligence thought that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan in 2002. But then, in May 2003, they concluded that he still had both legs. Cheney's "evidence" of an al-Qaeda-Saddam link via Zarqawi may be an intercepted phone call by Zarqawi from a Baghdad hospital in 2002, while his leg was being attended to. But then "Zarqawi" shows up in a video with both legs in the 2004 beheading of hostage Nick Berg.
Then again, you're entirely free to suck up everything Bush and Cheney are saying.