Malarkey. Can you point to one single source which claims this, even a
right-wing bull**** blog?


NOYB wrote:
Terrorism Spreads To Turkey
by Mahir Ali

Taking a page from your playbook, who is this guy? Why should anybody
believe him?


I'd say this pretty strongly suggests that there was a fear in Turkey's
Parliament that logistical support of the US invasion of Iraq would bring
about retaliatory terrorist strikes in Turkey.


And to top it off, he only says "it suggests".

There's a really strong reference to back up your claims, "it suggests."
Good one, NOBBY, anybody'd *have* to believe iron-clad references like that.


The Turks wanted assurances that we would not set up an independent Kurd
state, because of the large nationalist Kurd population within Turkey.
This would also be in US interest because a Kurdish state would almost
certainly become a Muslim fundie terrorist sponsor.




The Turks were also afraid of civil unrest in their Southeast provinces that
would lead to a movement by the Turkish Kurds to align forces with the Iraqi
Kurds and form a Kurdish state.

Duh. What do you think I just said?


Instead, we anger them to curry favor with the Kurds, who hate us and are
going to remain more friendly towards Al-Queda no matter what we do.



The majority of the Kurds are Shafite Sunnis and hate al-Qaeda. Get your
facts straight.

I've gotten my facts straight. The best you seem to come up with is "it
suggests."



My news source was an MSNBC interview by David Gregory with PM
al-Jafaari...and it most certainly backed my claim.

Except that al-Jafaari is a politician, handing out spin. A politician
with strong ties to toeing the Bush/Cheney line. And of course, outside
of rank propaganda, you come up with zingers like "it suggests."



... I wonder why your news
sources fail to mention the ongoing Halliburton half-billion $$ rip-off?


Red herring to divert the topic at hand.

Not reallly. The topic at hand is the lack of facts you're able to to
muster.


I wonder why your news sources fail to mention the lack of a connection
between Saddam & Sept 11th, even though President Bush has said himself
there is none?


He never said there wasn't one.

Bull****, he said so twice in the debates.

... Please post a quote from the President that
said such a thing.

Ten seconds with Google

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ushiraq18.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security.../0918proof.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/article203.html

I'm sure you'll like this one
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646142.shtml

Maybe this one will get your attention... bunch of libby-rull traitors!
http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=4299

Notice that when making fist-shaking speeches to the faithful (ie the
stupid) President Bush feels totally free to connect Sept 11th to Iraq
over & over. But when grown-ups are in the room, and the administration
has to be held responsible for his statements, they start backpedalling
and saying things like "we never stated there was proof."

So who do you believe, President Bush & his staff, or President Bush &
his staff?



... Ditto the pulling of troops away from the hunt for Bin
Laden, which Bush also admitted in his own words.


Goss pretty much told us why we can't pursue bin Laden. He's being
protected by another country's claim to territorial sovereignty.


Funny thing, that didn't stop Bush/Cheney from invading two other
countries. I guess it's a convenient excuse, that plus "he's not
important." No, he's only responsible for most deadly terrorist attack
in all history, along with other mass murders, and a man who has
personally declared war on the U.S. Now, if he had oil, or tried to
assassinate President Bush's daddy, that'd be another story wouldn't it?

DSK