please define the reason..... (1 Viewer)

[Captain America]

This thread reminds me of an old song from the Viet Nam era. Goes a little something like this......

And it's 1,2,3
What are we fight for?
Don't ask me 'cause I don't give a damn.
Next stop is Viet nam!

And it's 5,6,7
Open up the pearly gates.
Ain't no time to wonder why, whoppee!
We're all gonna die. :mrgreen:

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I pay for gas daily that most likely comes from all areas of the middle east. I realize that if the middle east were allowed to dictate the use of that oil on their terms, I would most likely be walking everywhere I go. I dont want that, so I gladly give my government free reign to do whatever is necessary to keep that oil flowing.

That is the most shameful thing i've ever heard someone admit to believing. I've always known that more than a minority felt that way, but to realize it entirely AND agree with it, that takes a special kind of evil.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Hypocracy? LOL! Because I use gas therefore I'm a "hypocrite" if I believe one nation does not have the right to invade another just because it has a resource it needs?

In your view, a nation has free reign to invade another to keep its resources flowing? Therefore Japan legitimately attacked the US, because the US had interfere with Japan's access to oil, right?

japan did what they needed to do. they lost.

 

[Iriemon]

japan did what they needed to do. they lost.

I for one disagree that Japan "needed" to invade, occupy, and rape its neighbors, or that it "needed" to make a surprise attack on the United States.

As to your implicit contention that Japan legitimately attacked the US, we will just have to disagree on that one as well.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I for one disagree that Japan "needed" to invade, occupy, and rape its neighbors, or that it "needed" to make a surprise attack on the United States.

As to your implicit contention that Japan legitimately attacked the US, we will just have to disagree on that one as well.

fine job of diverting attention from yourself USING THE VERY OIL YOU CONDEMN AMERICA FOR FIGHTING FOR.

 

[Iriemon]

fine job of diverting attention from yourself USING THE VERY OIL YOU CONDEMN AMERICA FOR FIGHTING FOR.

Heh heh, yes, the oil I use, the reason we invaded Iraq. I'm pretty sneaky that way.

 

[Hoot]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
We went into Iraq because Bush & Company told us that Saddam was in colusion with Al Qaeda...

That he was supporting terrorism including Alqaeda and that was true.

C'mon Stinger, that's an outright lie...no way did Saddam support Al Qeada. In fact he was in direct opposition to them and considered them a potential threat to his own lust for power.

It's difficult for me to have a conversation with someone who is so conservatively numb to the truth.


Quote: by Hoot
infering that Saddam helped attack us on 9/11.

You inferred that not the adminstiration.

Gimmeabreak Stinger. LOL! I can put multiple quotes up here showing how Bush tried to make this connection...over and over and over again.

Here's just one, as I'm pressed for time....

Bush Oct 7th, 2002..."Some citizens wonder why after 11 years of living with saddam's pursuit of wmd, why we need to confront it now? And there's a reason...we have experienced the horror of 9/11."

What else is the average U.S. citizen supposed to infer from this?

How about Bush saying "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda." ?

You don't think that infers that Saddam and Al Qaeda were in collusion?


Quote:by Hoot
We went into Iraq because of Saddams wmd programs, of which there was nothing..

Not true and cited over and over to you.

Bull...we didn't go into Iraq because of outdated, seriously degraded wmd, and YOU KNOW IT. You just refuse to concede even this small point. Even Bush himself admits we were wrong about the wmd. At least Bush was honest this time.




Quote:by Hoot
.at least this was what Bush & Co. told us.

No that is what you told us Bush & Co. told us. What they actually said is very available and for the most part true.

The most part true!:rofl I'm sorry...I mean no disrespect, but I can't stand it, Stinger...I need a break. Something is either true, or it isn't...there's no gray area with the truth, except where it concerns your partisanship of the Bush machine.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Bush Oct 7th, 2002..."Some citizens wonder why after 11 years of living with saddam's pursuit of wmd, why we need to confront it now? And there's a reason...we have experienced the horror of 9/11."

What else is the average U.S. citizen supposed to infer from this?

the same thing they infer from

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

your fellow democrats, among others.

damn those facts just keep gettin in the way of a good story dont they?

 

[Caine]

I pay for gas daily

Damn.. What do you drive?

Whatever it is, I don't want it. I got a V8 Dodge Pickup and I don't even have to pay for gas daily. :2razz::mrgreen:

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
We went into Iraq because Bush & Company told us that Saddam was in colusion with Al Qaeda...

C'mon Stinger, that's an outright lie...no way did Saddam support Al Qeada. In fact he was in direct opposition to them and considered them a potential threat to his own lust for power.

Well let's look at what the Clinton administration said in it's indictment of OBL for the embassy bombings.

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

It's difficult for me to have a conversation with someone who is so conservatively numb to the truth.

Do you really think that such personal invectives make you right or something. The facts have been cited over and over to you and all you do is ignore them and make such baseless statements.

And what did William Cohen, the defense secretary have to say about the pharmacuticle plant Clinton bomb and how it related to Al qaeda

....in March in testimony before the September 11 commission. "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13976

Quote: by Hoot
infering that Saddam helped attack us on 9/11.

Which is a phoney assertion on your part, no one has made any such claim that Saddam had ANY direct involvement in 9/11, You know that and you know your assertion is baseless.

Gimmeabreak Stinger. LOL! I can put multiple quotes up here showing how Bush tried to make this connection...over and over and over again.

No you've made baseless assertions to that effect and nothing more. You've taken statements out of context or else just shamelessly misrepresented them. And it has fooled no one. The administration was crystal clear in it's position that they had no evidence Saddam had a direct involvement in 9/11. That you so desperately seek otherwise indicate how weak your total position is.

Bush Oct 7th, 2002..."Some citizens wonder why ............................"

Let's look at the whole statement

" Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon."

Which in no way says Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. To say so is absurd.

"would be no less willing"...........a future event.
"to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon." produced by a Saddam Hussien willing to sell or give them to them. Produced once the sanctions were lifted and inspections over. Just as the Clinton administration also said would happen.

What else is the average U.S. citizen supposed to infer from this?

Nothing needs to be inferred. Perhaps if you just listened to what they said and stopped trying to self-servingly infer things that suit your baseless position you could deal more with the facts.

How about Bush saying "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda." ?

What about it?

You don't think that infers that Saddam and Al Qaeda were in collusion?

The Clinton administration didn't infer, they said were, we have ample evidence they had a mutual agreement of non-agreesion and cooperation, we have ample evidince they both wanted to further that relationship. So I don't need to infer anything we have plenty of facts on hand, we know what their relationship was it was unacceptable.

Quote:by Hoot
We went into Iraq because of Saddams wmd programs, of which there was nothing..

Already refuted.

Bull...we didn't go into Iraq because of outdated, seriously degraded wmd, and YOU KNOW IT.

We went after the very exact weapons we have been finding where you get the idea that ANY weaponst were OK is beyond me.

You just refuse to concede even this small point. Even Bush himself admits we were wrong about the wmd. At least Bush was honest this time.

I rufuse to concede your baseless assertions. What the Kay report, the Duelfer report, the 9/11 commission, the Senate Intelligence committe and the ongoing translation of documents have told us is PLENTY to justify what we did. Your bottom line is that no matter what you would not have supported removing Saddam Hussien. You would still have him in power and just imagine what the situation would be now after he had been out from under sanctions and inspections for the past two years and Israel was under attack. THAT is where you would have had us.

Originally Posted by Stinger
No that is what you told us Bush & Co. told us. What they actually said is very available and for the most part true.

The most part true!:rofl I'm sorry...I mean no disrespect,

Oh don't worry, you're in no position to do that anyway.

but I can't stand it, Stinger...I need a break.

No what you need are some facts and context to your post.

 

[tecoyah]

Which is a phoney assertion on your part, no one has made any such claim that Saddam had ANY direct involvement in 9/11, You know that and you know your assertion is baseless.


No you've made baseless assertions to that effect and nothing more. You've taken statements out of context or else just shamelessly misrepresented them. And it has fooled no one. The administration was crystal clear in it's position that they had no evidence Saddam had a direct involvement in 9/11. That you so desperately seek otherwise indicate how weak your total position is.

I certainly recall the hype and connection played out leading up to the war, and though I questioned it, I (for a time) was fooled into thinking Iraq was a player in 9/11. It was only after invasion that the message changed, and information released confirming no connection, at which point the administration no longer inferered this connection. While it is true Bush never actually said "Iraq is responsible for 9/11"....it is undeniable the attempt was made to create popular opinion that indeed this was the case. I was somewhat fooled by the spin for a time....and that is embarassing.

"from the March 14, 2003 edition

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.

In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq. But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.

Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.

This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don't rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.

The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."

Future fallout

In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.

"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over."

Antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg says it's important to understand why public opinion appears to be playing out differently in the US and Europe. In fact, both peoples express a desire to work through the UN. But the citizens get different messages from their leaders. "Americans have been told by their president [that Hussein is] a threat to security, and so they believe that," says Mr. Ellsberg. "It's rather amazing, in light of that, that so many Americans do want this to be authorized by the UN. After all, the president keeps saying we don't have to ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves."

This is an old story....but the message is important

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

 

[Hoot]

Great post, Tecoyah, but good luck getting Stinger to see any truth in it.

 

[ProudAmerican]

yeah great post. Its a freakin oped piece that proves nothing. It doesnt even give us the actualy speeches so we can read them and decide for ourselves.

I personally have been accused many times on this very site of claiming Iraq and 9-11 were connected. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NEVER ONCE DONE SO. EVER.

So its easy to see how the left tries to make the claim the president did the same thing.....when he never did.

All someone has to do is mention Iraq, Saddam, and the 9-11 attacks in the same paragraph.....while only trying to draw a paralell between the 9-11 terrorists and the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq.....and some leftist says

"Saddam and 9-11 arent connected.....how dare you make that assertion"

when the assertion was never made, intended, or insinuated.

Its another ridiculous tactic used by the left to try and discredit the president , nothing more.

 

[Stinger]

I certainly recall the hype and connection played out leading up to the war, and though I questioned it, I (for a time) was fooled into thinking Iraq was a player in 9/11.

Well don't blame the White House for that. They were quite clear in thier assertion that Saddam did NOT have a role in 9/11. Blame the media which tried to convience you, and apparently did so, that they were inferring it so that they could then argue they were lying. Should have just listened more closely to what the administratin was saying. I NEVER believed Saddam had a role in because I listened to what they were actually saying.

It was only after invasion that the message changed,

There was no change of message.

and information released confirming no connection, at which point the administration no longer inferered this connection.

They didn't in the first place. The media harped and harped on it and asked them over and over and asked "wasn't there just a little bitty tiny chance that he might have been involved" tyring to drag out such a statement but it was never issued by the White House.

While it is true Bush never actually said "Iraq is responsible for 9/11"

Nor anyone else.

....it is undeniable the attempt was made to create popular opinion that indeed this was the case. I was somewhat fooled by the spin for a time....and that is embarassing.

There was no such attempt, too bad you didn't use better news sources else you would not have believed otherwise.

"from the March 14, 2003 edition

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times.

Then obviously it didn't focus soley on Iraq.

He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

OH WOW! Probably in reference to the threat Saddam posed in supporting terrorist in the future.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression

Give me a break.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks,

And that is exactly what the administration said. If you have a quote of them claim Saddam was involved post else the media just pulled one over on you trying to claim they did so they could say Bush was a liar and mislead you. The only ones who mislead you were the reporters writing the type of garbage you cited.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq.

Not to 9/11. Again this is just evidence of a very bad reporter who is creating myths.

But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.

Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.

Once again the reporter is reporting as fact things he/ she doesn't know anything about. Evidence does not support the contention they had animosity towards each, quite the opposite. Did they carry out any operation together, there is no evidence they did. But they did have a mutual agreement to support each other.

This is an old story....but the message is important

It's an old myth. ALL the statements the administration made are available online. You can search all of them and try to find a statement from them claiming Saddam had an involvement in 9/11. But the fact is they never made that claim from the get-go, the media hyped that.

 

[Stinger]

yeah great post. Its a freakin oped piece that proves nothing. It doesnt even give us the actualy speeches so we can read them and decide for ourselves.

I personally have been accused many times on this very site of claiming Iraq and 9-11 were connected. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NEVER ONCE DONE SO. EVER.

So its easy to see how the left tries to make the claim the president did the same thing.....when he never did.

It was the liberal media claiming he said it so that then they could say he mislead them and lied to them. Yet no one can post an official statement from anyone in the adminstration making such a claim while in fact there are many many statements from them claiming the was NO connection. And people refuse to accept what they actually said and grab on to these claims that is was "inferred", that they were "fooled". I'd be embarassed to admit the media fooled me so badly.

 

[Stinger]

Great post, Tecoyah, but good luck getting Stinger to see any truth in it.

What truth in it? It was as easy to rebut it as any of the baseless assertions you have posted. When will YOU see the truth that has been posted by me and others, truths you have been unable to rebut?

 

[Hoot]

So its easy to see how the left tries to make the claim the president did the same thing.....when he never did.

C'mon people...there's a wealth of material out there that shows how the administration tried to link Saddam with the events of 9/11. How can anyone who was alive back then possibly deny this?!

I'm frankly astounded at the outright partisan blindness of some individuals?! Iraq and 9/11 were continually mushed together to delude the American public!

Here's one more little snippet...this time from Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press'.....(speaking of success in Iraq)

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographical base of the terrorists who had us under assualt now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Doh! What else is the average American supposed to assume about statements like this? Now you can continue to argue your little grade school semantics and say..."No...The Bush administration never said Iraq/Saddam attacked us," but most of us know better.

As this is old news now, and we are already stuck in Iraq, the question of how or why we got there is not much concern to me. You and Stinger can come back and create endless posts on how Bush never used the word "imminent," as though that proves some sort of point, but you will never convince me, and I will never convince you, so where does this leave us? Nowhere.

Just know that a good 60-70% of the American people now believe the Iraq war was a mistake, and now we need to get the hell out of there.

Afterall, Iraq has their own government, their own police force(such as it is) and their own military. Just what the hell are we still doing there?

 

[Stinger]

C'mon people...there's a wealth of material out there that shows how the administration tried to link Saddam with the events of 9/11. How can anyone who was alive back then possibly deny this?!

Nope and everytime you post something you claim does so it is easily shown to do nothing of the sort. What there is a wealth of is the administration saying that they were not making any such connection.

Here's one more little snippet...this time from Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press'.....(speaking of success in Iraq)

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographical base of the terrorists who had us under assualt now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Another example of a cite which does not say anything about Saddam being directly involved in 9/11. You fail once more. Al qaeda had a base in Iraq, we struck at it, we have hurt them there. It says nothing about Saddam being involved in the 9/11 attack.

Doh! What else is the average American supposed to assume about statements like this?

That is your problem, you are so hellbent on finding something anything to support your bogus claim you are left with false assumptions. The statement is clear on it's face that you insist on adding assumptions is YOUR problem not mine.

As this is old news now, and we are already stuck in Iraq, the question of how or why we got there is not much concern to me. You and Stinger can come back and create endless posts on how Bush never used the word "imminent," as though that proves some sort of point, but you will never convince me, and I will never convince you, so where does this leave us? Nowhere.

Where does it leave us, me and others citing the facts and you trying to read into things something which is not there. Why not just admit that the administration never made the claims you attribute to them and argue about what they actually said.

Afterall, Iraq has their own government, their own police force(such as it is) and their own military. Just what the hell are we still doing there?

You are certainly free to go and read the reasons which the adminsitration has clearly stated.

 

[Iriemon]

C'mon people...there's a wealth of material out there that shows how the administration tried to link Saddam with the events of 9/11. How can anyone who was alive back then possibly deny this?!

I'm frankly astounded at the outright partisan blindness of some individuals?! Iraq and 9/11 were continually mushed together to delude the American public!

Here's one more little snippet...this time from Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press'.....(speaking of success in Iraq)

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographical base of the terrorists who had us under assualt now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Doh! What else is the average American supposed to assume about statements like this? Now you can continue to argue your little grade school semantics and say..."No...The Bush administration never said Iraq/Saddam attacked us," but most of us know better.

As this is old news now, and we are already stuck in Iraq, the question of how or why we got there is not much concern to me. You and Stinger can come back and create endless posts on how Bush never used the word "imminent," as though that proves some sort of point, but you will never convince me, and I will never convince you, so where does this leave us? Nowhere.

Just know that a good 60-70% of the American people now believe the Iraq war was a mistake, and now we need to get the hell out of there.

Afterall, Iraq has their own government, their own police force(such as it is) and their own military. Just what the hell are we still doing there?

Of course Hoot. We all know that. Polls showed that substantial portions of the popultion believed that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and that there were Iraqis on those aircraft.

WASHINGTON (AP) 9/6/2003 — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Even more surprising is that large percentages continue to believe this stuff:

More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe the following claims not made by the president and which virtually no experts believe to be true:

47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).
36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544

This erroneous beliefs about Husseins involvement in 9/11 didn't come because the "liberal" media waged a disinformation campaign. They came because of the propoganda campaign of this administration. Propoganda works on a certain segment of the population. As Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

But don't expect the Bush apologists here to acknowledge any of this.

 

[faithful_servant]

fine job of diverting attention from yourself USING THE VERY OIL YOU CONDEMN AMERICA FOR FIGHTING FOR.

Psssttt.... PA, a few simple questions for you: If the reason we went to Iraq was the oil, why aren't we committing all of our military resources to protecting the supply chain? Why didn't we just take over the oil production and start sending oil to America in a huge USN protected convoys? Why are we spending all of the time and money to rebuild Iraq when the simple solution would be to focus all of our efforts on the oil?

 

[Iriemon]

Psssttt.... PA, a few simple questions for you: If the reason we went to Iraq was the oil, why aren't we committing all of our military resources to protecting the supply chain? Why didn't we just take over the oil production and start sending oil to America in a huge USN protected convoys? Why are we spending all of the time and money to rebuild Iraq when the simple solution would be to focus all of our efforts on the oil?

The basic problem is that the neocon fantasy did not imagine that a lot of Iraqs would actually not love the infidel US bombing the crap out of and occupying their country.

Plus, it would not be done so openly and obviously. What that plan was that US companies get the fat rebuilding and operating contract, made behind secret closed doors (Cheney is good at that) with coalition and Iraqi Govt reps.

 

[Stinger]

Of course Hoot. We all know that. Polls showed that substantial portions of the popultion believed that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and that there were Iraqis on those aircraft.

Which proves nothing towards your's and Hoot's claim that the administration made any such claim.

This erroneous beliefs about Husseins involvement in 9/11 didn't come because the "liberal" media waged a disinformation campaign.

In fact it did, the liberal media was the ONLY source for such claims, the administration was clearly saying otherwise.

But don't expect the Bush apologists here to acknowledge any of this.

Of course not there is nothing factual in your claims that the administration was making such claims. That you inferred anything is your own problem don't blame anyone else.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon: This erroneous beliefs about Husseins involvement in 9/11 didn't come because the "liberal" media waged a disinformation campaign.

In fact it did, the liberal media was the ONLY source for such claims, the administration was clearly saying otherwise.

LMFAO!!!!

Of course not there is nothing factual in your claims that the administration was making such claims. That you inferred anything is your own problem don't blame anyone else.

"But don't expect the Bush apologists here to acknowledge any of this."

 

[Stinger]

LMFAO!!!!
"But don't expect the Bush apologists here to acknowledge any of this."

Your lack of factual rebuttle and inability to cite an incident of what you claim is noted along with your lack of acknowledgement that the adminsitration ever made such a claim. That you confused yourself into believing it is your problem.

 

[Hoot]

What's the point, Iremon? There's no arguing with someone like Stinger.

Did you see the post where he said he actually is an "independent" when it comes to voting?! ROTFLMFAO!!!!