These are all verifiable facts and not from utube or some other garbage site?
913475
1) "Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania."\nSeattle Times\n\n2) "Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990 provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that:\n\nA) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, \n\nB) the attack was going to involve airplanes, \n\nC) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States."   Sibel Edmonds\n \n*Would you not expect the FBI would distance themselves from admitting to finding any "hard evidence?"\n\n3) "The Bush administration called on four outside, non-government translators to review the tape, to counter possible claims that the White House had doctored it or provided an inaccurate translation." CNN\n*There seems to still be speculation about the varification of this tape. But some transcrips which followed seemed to add some validity to them.\nI think the jury's still out on this one.\n\n4) *Do not use "intelligence" as a source - it was "intellegence" that told President Kennedy that the Cubans would rise up and oust Fidel Castro if we provided tha needed aid for the Bay of Pigs Invasion - and "intellegence" that had Saddam sitting on a mountain of WMDs.\n\n5) *This statement is not true. Actual quote:\n\n"We got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden," he said at a news conference, according to Reuters. "It's a matter of time, unless we stop looking. And we're not going to stop looking so long as I'm the president -- not only for Osama bin Laden, but anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the United States of America," Bush said.\n\nIn answer to your question, of course not - no one man could pull of such an elaborate plan. Do I think al Qaeda is responsible? Yes. \nDo I think Bin Laden is a major player in al Qaeda? Again, Yes. \nIt's not too difficult to connect the dots.\n\n*my comments.
659757
Plenty of evidence! \n\nHere's a good place to "start" :
763440
That website you gave is from fakeawish.com...its fake. You can make up your own fake news bits on there also
981608
real. authentic. not fake.\nuptempoair is a legit site.
189640
Absolutely not!\n\nAsk for business references that can be verified, and check them.
889296
you can go to google and search them but don't get anything from wikipedia because anybody can change that information on that. so you never know if that is the real info.
203503
i just found this sites. Hope it helps.\n\nthe site you mentioned seems to look reliable, i just went on it.
20692
They done a recent study about this. Please check the source site. However, it's a good idea to double check facts because some people have lied on that site.
236795
yes.  below is one of the websites that has info.
468135
Please get your facts straight
887642
And this is based upon what evidence?\n\nHow about a source.\nHm still no source for your misinformation.
741595
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:S0FozEIhtw0J:justfuckinggoogleit.com/\n\nHTH\n\n.
475240
Yes, it is,. It is the way that it is used by the users that makes it potentially an illegal site.\n\nI guess it depends on how you use it.
734385
Does anyone really know the truth about anything? Seriously now, what do we know as an absolute fact that not one person in this world of over 6 billion people would contest?
1147806
Did you know:\n\n- 92% of posters named "ast5792" make up statistics?\n\n- Over 77% of readers believe them?\n\n- 84% of statistics are made to fit the argument?\n\n- 98% of unsupported opinions have fake statistics attached to them?\n\n- 100% of the statistics I give in this post are unfounded (as are yours)
1037551
Well no, it isn't true. It's a webpage from a random nutcase. The internet is full of them. this one isn't even very entertaining.\n\nIf you are going to waste your time reading the webpages of psuedoscientific loonies (as I often do) you should at least look for the entertaining ones.\n\nI recommend the site below.
951400
But how much of your "information" is filtered through a system that may not give you the whole truth?\n\nAny source for news will have a bias, regardless of the intention.\n\nNo offense, what proof do you have to support the 90% number you quote?