posted on September 8, 2003 04:02:58 PM new
You demo's are going to hate this poll taken by a VERY LIBERAL news source, The Washington Post.
The Post reports that 80% of Republicans, 67% of independents and 62% of Democrats answered "somewhat" or "very" likely. And the paper doesn't think much of this view, calling it an "apparently groundless belief" and interviewing an assortment of "experts" who, while acknowledging that President Bush has never actually asserted such a link, he has used devious mind-control techniques to fool Americans into believing it exists.
In truth, however, "somewhat likely" is the correct answer to the Post's question. The evidence pointing toward a link is far from conclusive, so "very likely" goes too far. But there is ample reason to treat Saddam as guilty until proven innocent. For one thing, he simply fits the profile: America-hating Muslim Arab male with a history of mass murder. And he's known to have had various connections with al Qaeda over the years.
============================================
Washington Post Poll:
Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 Attacks
Saturday, September 6, 2003
The latest Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll. Interviewing was conducted by TNS Intersearch.
posted on September 8, 2003 09:40:26 PM newAmerica-hating Muslim Arab male with a history of mass murder. And he's known to have had various connections with al Qaeda over the years.
Yes, and look at all the extremists that think he should have been left alone to continue in his position. Their hatred of an American president so huge but they defend someone the likes of Saddam.
But not one of them will answer why Saddam didn't just prove to the UN and the world he no longer had the weapons the *world knew* he did right up until clinton's bombing in 1998? Was Resolution 1441 just some sick game the UN was playing with Saddam? Why didn't he hand over all the required documents proving where these weapons [known to exist] were. OR prove they had been destroyed? Why continue to play this game with the UN if he had nothing to hide?
So far no one on the left has been willing to address those questions.
Even their president, clinton, said [this year] we just didn't know if the weapons he knew were there [in 1998] were destroyed or not.
So finally a president, after 9-11, who was no longer willing to take the 'risk' does something about it.
And again....had he not done anything and another 9-11 type incident had happened, we'd, once again, be hearing the same harping that we are now about "he knew, and did nothing to protect us".
posted on September 8, 2003 10:15:26 PM new
As to proving he had no weapons the UN Inspectors were in the process of determining whether or not Iraq had any when Bush jumped the gun without the sanction of the UN. I realize that an argument can be made that Hussein was not a nice guy but that was not the argument that was made. Claims of an immediate Nuclear and Biological threat were claimed and remain unproven to date.
Both the foreign and domestic policies of this administration are miserable failures and no matter how much rightist rhetoric you regurgitate from your ideologues does not change that one simple fact.
Bushed talked a molehill up till it appeared to be a mountain.
The King is in his altogether, altogether, altogether.
The King is in his altogether as naked as the day that he was born.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on September 9, 2003 12:39:29 AM new
The only evidence of WOMDs or X-WOMDs, were the reciepts for the WOMDs which Dumbya got from his daddy, and even I knew they were X-WOMDS when he attacked.
He said that he had evidence because he didn’t know that he had none?
If he got a BJ from Monica, I would be cool with that, but this issue is just a little more sensitive.
posted on September 9, 2003 03:03:52 AM new
Mr. President
"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question."— Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000
You got any PROOF that Saddam had links with Al-Qaeda?
Thought so...talking crap again. The only contact Saddam had with Al-Qaeda is the numerous times they have tried to assassinate him. But people knowing that would screw up your lying ways, wouldn't it?
Punk!
As for Bush never saying specifically that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were linked, well, maybe so. He had low-level lackeys take the blame for that. And using Saddam and Al-Qaeda in the same sentence is just another psychological way of doing it. He controls you bear, you are his willing butt-slave.\
Try learning to talk from only ONE side of your mouth..... The one nearest the brain that is....not the one the Bush Regime is working on
Punk!
[ edited by mlecher on Sep 9, 2003 10:08 AM ]
posted on September 9, 2003 10:23:29 AM new
Lecher do you always call your betters punk when you can think of no other reply.
You must be forgetting the dictionary definition of your handle......LICKER
"The only way we will fail in this country (Iraq) is if we decide to walk away in Iraq and fight the next battle in the war on terrorism in America." Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
posted on September 9, 2003 02:35:27 PM newAs to proving he had no weapons the UN Inspectors were in the process of determining whether or not Iraq had any when Bush jumped the gun without the sanction of the UN.
The inspectors had been in this process for 13 years and saddam continued his 'game playing' with the last group of inspectors.
If you read clinton's speech from Dec.16, 1998 he bombed Iraq for the same reason....to destroy the WOMD HE believed saddam had too. Clinton has recently said his intelligence had no knowledge as to whether, after the bombing, any weapons remained or not. Neither did Bush and we were now under his 'watch'. Bush just decided to quit playing the lengthy games and took action. He gave saddam 'one last chance' too. BUT he meant what he said and surprised them all.
The UN agreed with Bush and voted 15-0 that saddam needed to comply with 1441.
There was NO argument on that issue. Where the disagreement came up was on whether to allow saddam more time to play games. Bush gave saddam months to do as he agreed to. Then Bush took action....finally.
posted on September 9, 2003 03:33:30 PM new
LICKER, I guess that explains the bruses on your hands & knees or should I call you NED
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
posted on September 9, 2003 04:33:18 PM new
And Linda_K..
Where ARE those WOMD's?
Oh, that's right, they NEVER EXISTED WHEN DUMBYA WAS PRESIDENT! Saddam said he didn't have any, AND HE DIDN'T. My God, the bastard told the truth. What a con job that was....
[ edited by mlecher on Sep 9, 2003 04:34 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2003 05:08:01 PM new
"If you read Clinton's speech from Dec.16, 1998" .... there is no point to as the relevance of an opinion 5 years out of date is irrelevant having little to no bearing on the present situation. The Iraqi military capability had been degraded seriously over the years. The expediency of this attack was purely the implementation of an unproven political strategy which has not been successful and unfortunately is ongoing.
posted on September 9, 2003 05:24:54 PM new
dave there is no point to as the relevance of an opinion 5 years out of date is irrelevant having little to no bearing on the present situation.
It most certainly does. Saddam was still under UN obligation to honor not only his prior UN agreements [disclose and prove any destroyed weapons] but also the VERY current resolution 1441..... right up until the time Bush dropped the first bomb. He was unwilling to comply.
The Iraqi military capability had been degraded seriously over the years. Oh and you know this HOW???? Guess clinton doesn't agree with you since just three or four months ago he didn't know. But I'm sure if he didn't know....you have your own inside sources.
The expediency of this attack was purely the implementation of an unproven political strategy which has not been successful and unfortunately is ongoing. You have no true idea what the motives behind the expediency was. You're only guessing and have no knowledge of what our intelligence knew/knows was happening at that time. And it may have been to go to war on the same 'surprise' level clinton spoke of.
Fact is saddam could have prevent this by complying with 1441. He did not. Period.
posted on September 9, 2003 05:38:31 PM new
I have tried to keep my posts short and polite. Faced with the overall level of your ignorance it is difficult.
posted on September 9, 2003 06:54:14 PM new
Well....sorry you weren't able to continue your facade. lol
The fact that we are now in Iraq could have easily been avoided by Saddam IF he had not continued playing games and had handed over all the required documents. This lays at HIS feet alone, imho.
------
The democrats are very divided as a party on this issue, just as they were during Vietnam. During that time their party was split in half. I am hoping the democratic nomination goes to Dean....the anti-war leader.
posted on September 9, 2003 07:31:35 PM new
Dumbya was leader of the willing.
The call was his. The decision was at his feet.
He lied and now the excuse is ignorance.
He lied because he made unqualified false assertions.
If he were a medico, he'd now be in jail for malpractice.
If he were an antiques dealer, he'd be in court for misrepresentation.
9/11 was a sad but empowering day for him.
Many neocons would consider it acceptable collateral damage.
Sadam and Ossama are their mascots.
The Bush monarchy funded them both REMEMBER DUH!
And are currently enjoying the benifits in their energy & arms share portfolios, just like grand-papy did with the Nazis.
It seems that the apple does not in fact fall far from the tree.
posted on September 10, 2003 09:15:19 AM new
Austi, your apple not only fell from the tree, but landed on its head.
Since you brought up the issue of consorting with the Nazi, you need to remember that Joe Kennedy A DEMOCRAT (father of JFK, RFk & ol Teddy boy) was a proud supporter of the Nazi party)
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
posted on September 10, 2003 09:32:55 AM newOH
Ok then bear, Bush is forgiven for his sins.
bear "Joe Kennedy....was a proud supporter of the Nazi party" blah blah
REAlY
Did he launder money and run petrol for Nazis during WWII and have a few companies seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act like Prescott Bush??
Do you take pride in comparing Bush to those you believe the worst!!
Perhaps you should set your sights a little higher!
posted on September 10, 2003 09:40:29 AM new
And pray tell, Linda, what DIDN'T Sadaam do in relation to Res. 1441? He was required to get rid of his WOMD's, he did. He was to allow inspections, he did. He wasn't to have any banned material, he didn't have any.
Bush was to stupid to believe that and invaded an independent nation. He found out Saddam was telling the truth and was in compliance. Now Bush and Gang must continue to tap dance their way out. It isn't working.
Your bringing up of 1441 was a falsehood you hoped no one would remember, You were wrong....AGAIN!
Go blow smoke up Bush's a$$ not here. There are educated people here and many independent thinkers, unlike yourself.
posted on September 10, 2003 09:47:12 AM new
No Linda, I find your mental condition and continual denial of any fact that cannot be verified by either an ultra conservative or fundamentalist source ridiculous. It is a pointless endeavor as you lack the cognitive functions needed to process any information, your mental condition has given you the ability to remain in denial for all time. I am sorry to put it in these terms but I do not possess the eloquence to candy coat it.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on September 10, 2003 12:11:04 PM newNo Linda, I find your mental condition and continual denial of any fact that cannot be verified by either an ultra conservative or fundamentalist source ridiculous.
Well...I won't take that statement too seriously nor personally as I wouldn't think you'd find anyone who holds a conservative thought to any different. It appears to me that in your mind, if one doesn't follow the extreme liberal view, then one has a mental condition. ROFHMHO
It is a pointless endeavor as you lack the cognitive functions needed to process any information, your mental condition has given you the ability to remain in denial for all time.
Well, dave I will admit to not being as articulate as some posters here. But I certainly don't feel 'my mental condition' nor my reasoning abilities are lacking in any way, shape or form. It's called 'calling it as one sees it'. You know....we don't all think alike. Doesn't mean one is defective in some way and the other is perfect. But if it makes you feel better about yourself....go for it.
Being in a *group*, along with 150 million other US citizens really doesn't make me feel this is a problem for e at this time....but thank you for your concern....rather that it's a difference of philosophy between people.
I am sorry to put it in these terms but I do not possess the eloquence to candy coat it.
No #*!@!!! So you have areas where you judge yourself to be lacking something too. That's a good thing. I just can't deal with people who not only think they're perfect, but think their way of viewing the issues are the only ones allowed.
Obviously your mother never taught you if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Or maybe she tried but you thought that was too conservative. LOL
posted on September 10, 2003 03:52:54 PM new
Austi, actually ol Joe did launder money for Hitler converting gold stolen from the Jews into cash. He was also a bootlegger, an inside trader that made money from the depression & you would be proud to know that Joe. like you hated Jews.
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
posted on September 10, 2003 09:04:50 PM new
It seems bear that you bring attention to the fact that there is a history of Americans meddling in the affairs of Jews Nazis and Arabs.
So are you saying it’s normal to do that if an American and therefore Bush is removed from criticism.
Is it acceptable to 'profile' those with Arab associations, including Americans, but not associates of meddling traitors or those that breach international laws if they are Americans.
It's ok to be anti-the-other-Semites but not anti-Jewish-Semites in your book!
as I wouldn't think you'd find anyone who holds a conservative thought to any different.