Quote:

---

Originally posted by Citizen:
Read my statements over a few times in context, I'm sure you'll get it eventually. I can help you if you like, or you can, you know, continue to troll for an argument and oh so politely personally attack anyone you disagree with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So now you’re changing your story? Good. Because you’re original one stunk.

---

Quote:

---

Terrorists have always found a way of getting money, and a great deal of it comes in the form of seemingly legitimate charities in the wealthy Western World, but to blanketly criticize charitable donations as supporting terrorism is a mistake, at best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Rap,

"All that was said is that we should act BEFORE there are mushroom clouds."

The UN WAS acting - and it was within a few weeks of finding a WMD-free Iraq. Under those conditions, why did the US invade?

As to Iraq and 9/11 - please cite some evidence.

But you still didn't answer my question. It's like you have no existence, no thoughts, no responses beyond talking points. I'd say you were a Rovian wet-dream, made corporeal. Or, more accurately, incorporated.

So, why do you persist in dumping the bs so completely and consistently? How'd you get that way?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Aparently Cit doesn't want to respond to my post after seeing one thing he didn't agree with.

---

Quote:

---

You're beyond delusional. The U.N. said Iraq had to comply, Iraq did NOT comply.

---

Quote:

---

So far,
Iraq has paid $18 billion in compensation, with the bulk going to Kuwait. The cash came from oil revenues under the United Nations' oil-for-food program. The original cut was 30 percent, reduced then to 25 percent, but after the American occupation the Security Council reduced the amount to 5 percent of oil revenues

---

Quote:

---

As for Iraq and 9/11, there's nothing more to say. I've already replied to everything you asked. You asking it over and over again does not negate my reply. Sorry.

---

Quote:

---

How is it you think that Democrats could be so gun ho for taking out Iraq and its WMD in '98, '00 and even up 'till '02 , and then *magically * change their opinions 2 years later ? WTF ? All the evidnece was the same, whehter it was Clinton or Bush in the W.H, but then for some reason the Dems started getting cold feet....or rather saw a political shift, so they changed their opinions. They fucking sold out the security of this country for PURE POLITICAL POWER! END OF STORY.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:


My last post was to the smartass oldenglanddry.

You go ahead and sign that sheet and come on over. A word of advice to you though. If you try coming into my house and telling me I'm going to do things your way, you better wear a helmet and some serious body armor.

---

Quote:

---

There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11, and actually no conneciton bewteen Iraq and al Qaida, but Bush made certain that he metioned 9-11 each time he talked about Iraq. And the info that he fed the Senators was cooked up. Can you show that Bush took pains to make NO connection between Iraq and 9-11? No, you can't.

---

Quote:

---

SigNMy - Check out Resolution 1441. It's clear from that that Iraq had and was failing to abide by the rules. I really do hate this revisionist history lesson we've allowed to be promoted.

---

Quote:

---

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

3) That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".

---

Quote:

---

We never knew there was any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda w/ respect to 9-11-01. That we don't KNOW doesn't mean there wasn't any. But that was NEVER the reason for going into Iraq. See above UN Resolution, 1441.

---

Quote:

---

Before the war, 85% of American were convinced that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Why do you suppose that was? Did it happen by accident?

---

Quote:

---

But let's set that aside for the moment. Was it really necessary to invade?

---

Quote:

---

The same goes for the Democratic statements. Let's assume that many of them believed that Saddam had WMD, or wanted WMD. Again- what do do about it?

---

Quote:

---

Signy- Before the war, 85% of American were convinced that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Why do you suppose that was? Did it happen by accident?

Auraptor- Where the HELL did you get that information?

---

Quote:

---

Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003.

How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?

was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks?
Very- 32 Somewhat -37

has provided assistance to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network
Very- 51 Somewhat-31
was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction Very- 62 Somewhat- 22

---

Quote:

---

I call B.S.! A full YEAR before we went to Iraq, we were invading Afghanistan. But even IF Americans were convinced of that nonsense, it doesn't mean that the Bush Administration was responsible for those beliefs. Hell, I wasn't of that mind set, and I'd been following this all along.

---

Quote:

---

Signy-But let's set that aside for the moment. Was it really necessary to invade?

Auraptor- Finally, a legitimate issue! I can see both sides to this issue, and I could even accept 'some' view points which did not advocate for war.

Signy-The same goes for the Democratic statements. Let's assume that many of them believed that Saddam had WMD, or wanted WMD. Again- what to do about it?

Auraptor-Some Dems talked a big game, but seems now that few think it was all that big an security issue. The fact is, we spent 8 yrs not doing much of anything , except enforcing the no fly zones, attacking a time or two with cruise missles

---

Quote:

---

Should we have ? kinda late to be asking that now, isn't it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But not apparently following what your fellow citizens were thinking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I want them all over for dinner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'd question whether a 1,003 randomly called people is a valid cross section of a country of 300 million.

---

Quote:

---

I'd question whether a 1,003 randomly called people is a valid cross section of a country of 300 million.

---

Quote:

---

I'd also contest how one arrives at the conclusion that Saddam "was responsible" for 9/11 when more replied with 'somewhat' than ' very' likely.

---

Quote:

---

Especially when more said Saddam was 'very' than 'somewhat' likely to provided assistance to OBL. That's not the same as being 'responsible' for 9/11.

---

Quote:

---

But here's the key point....of those polled, most indicated that Saddam was 'very' likely to be developing wdm, which falls exactly in line w/ the Senators views and intel which we had before the war. Saddam having WMD and the STRONG LIKELYHOOD that he'd share some info / material with al Qaeda was a risk that this administration was not WILLING to take. The thought of doing NOTHING here was the worse option. And at the time, most Americans , even Democrat Senators, agreed.

---

Quote:

---

Saddam sent 30 + scuds into Israel during the 1st Gulf War, when Israel had absolutely nothing to do w/that war. Actions like that by Sadddam were reason enough to fear that he might do other things, like give assistance to terrorist groups.

---

Quote:

---

The only mistakes I think we made were going into Iraq too lite, and not clamping down on the vandalism and lawlessness following U.S. forces entering into Baghdad at the fall of Sadddam's army. I still think we're not being as proactive as we need to fight the insurgency.

---

Quote:

---

Considering that Saddam had NOTHING AT ALL to do with 9-11, don't you find it a bit disconcerting that 30-some percent thought he was personally responsible and an additional 40-some percent connected him to 9-11

---

Quote:

---

And they were wrong on all counts. Saddam was not developing WMD, in fact he had them destroyed

---

Quote:

---

But Auraptor, you keep talking about "doing NOTHING" when in fact something was being done, and successfully done at that. Why do you keep ignoring the inspections, the embargo, and the no-fly zones? Please explain to me why you so persistently ignore/ dismiss those activities. Were you unaware of them? Did you not trust their effectiveness? In your view it's as if they never happened. Why?

---

Quote:

---

Sorry to add like Jayne here, but 30 + 40 sure don't add up to 85% !! Back to your original claim, that those polls some how equate to 85% of Americans thinking Saddam " was responsible" for 9/11...sorry, the numbers don't come anywhere near to adding up. And while not a sign of GUILT, there were those murals of the WTC Towers on fire on the police station walls in Iraq. More than one, if memory serves me right. And that right there shows motive, on the official level. Hard to see that and then think Saddam WOULDN'T have helped, had he been asked.

---

Quote:

---

You ARE aware that some WMD materials which Iraq was suppose to have destroyed were found. Things the inspectors had missed before the war. And if those were found, there's no telling what ELSE Saddam might have. Seems the U.N. wasn't conviced enough to pass a resolution or making any sort of official comment.

---

Quote:

---

I guess because they WEREN'T doing anything. The huge report which Iraq handed over before the war was so full of holes that it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The no-fly zones which our planes had repeatedly been targeted in ? The fact that ALL the intel we had contradicted what you claim the UN inspectors were saying, when ONCE AGAIN...it was IRAQ who was responsible for complying ot the UN resolutions, it was NOT THE JOB OF THE RUTTIN INSPECTORS!! Somehow that tiny fact complety escapes some.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
My memory was off. Still it was an overwhelming majority of American who thought Saddam was somehow involved in 9-11. And the question reamins: how did 70% (in some polls, more) of American link Saddam Hussein with 9-11 when he had NOTHING to do with it? Was it the "liberal press" that put them up to it? If not- what is your explanation for the genesis of this misunderstanding?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I think I said my memory was off on that. But a vast majority of the population did think that Saddam was either personally responsible or may have been personally reponsible. Considering that Saddam has as much to do with 9-11 as Hugo Chavez the question remains- How did this 70% make that connection? Did it come from the liberal press?

---

Quote:

---

Considering that Saddam has as much to do with 9-11 as Hugo Chavez the question remains- How did this 70% make that connection? Did it come from the liberal press?

---

Quote:

---

Many Americans were aware of Hussein’s attempt to assassinate a former US president.

---

Quote:

---

Hussein had far more to do with 9/ll then Hugo Chavez, but in any event, the Iraq conflict was always a big issue in the papers. For ten years Americans watched the news and saw Iraq attack the US, often monthly. They knew that the US was one of the major enforcers of the UN resolutions against Iraq and one of the strongest supports of sanctions. They saw Hussein butcher his own people and knew that the US was involved in patrolling US airspace to counter this. They saw ongoing clashes between Baghdad and UNSCOM, and they saw Baghdad ultimately win that clash and make the UN look stupid. They watched as the UN’s credibility collapsed and the Hussein’s political strength and anti-American belligerence build. Many Americans were aware of Hussein’s attempt to assassinate a former US president. It’s not difficult to imagine how a large number of Americans could believe, completely on their own, that Hussein was in some way behind 9/ll. What surprises me is that only about 30% of the country believed this; given what I thought most Americans knew about the issue, I would have imagined a larger percentage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN: Do you have any POLLS to back this up? For xample, a month after 9-11, who did "the American people" think was responsible? Tell you what: Post a poll taken within three months of 9-11 showing Saddam as the culprit and I'll concede the point.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, a few dozen decades-old shells or canisters here and there, found abandoned in bunkers, a few buried parts, totalling up to maybe several hundred unmaintained pieces of mostly unuseable items. (A few canisters of mustard gas were prolly still viable.) And the reason WHY the UN didn't write a final report is because they never got to finish their inpsection. USA bombing drove them out- remember? So they let the Americans finish the inspection. If you recall, David Kay, one of the USA members of the UNMOVIC inspection team (along with Scott Ritter) was a man highly motivated to find WMD. But the Kay/ Duelfer report had to conclude that while they found evidence of some remains of a program, there was no active WMD production. I bring that to your attemtion because I assume you would trust a complete American report over an in-process UN report. So, can we both conclude that there was no WMD production?

---

Quote:

---

"Liberal" press my ass, that particular myth is as bad as anything you'd find on snopes, repeated experiments and investigations have proven that's anything but true, just beatin a dead horse on that one, I guess the righteywhiteys figure if they say it often enough, folks might actually start to believe that tripe.

---

Quote:

---

A few dozen shells? Try over 500 chem war head shells. And it doesn't matter HOW old they were, after 12 yrs of 'inspecting', somehow those things and a host of other items still were found.

---

Quote:

---

They weren't too concerned about those being found, so it leads us to wonder what they WERE hiding.

---

Quote:

---

Sure, Saddam might have dismantled his wmd production ...until the inspectors had left for good. It was a waiting game, and Saddam figured he was at the point of winning. He figured wrong.

---

Quote:

---

As for the ' true story' in China, I'm sorry to hear that. I'll bet there were at least a few of their countrymen who died in that attack, not that they seem to care.

---

Quote:

---

On the flip side, I know some folks who were traveling through Europe on 9/11, and the reactions were quite different. There were candle light vigils and services for the victims where ever they went, and when the locals found out they were Americans, tears of sorrow welled up . Maybe they were older Europeans, who remember it was the USA that sacrificed so many of her finest to help end the war, and free the continent, but at least they saw the savagery of those attacks and shared in our tragedy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And it doesn't matter HOW old they were, after 12 yrs of 'inspecting', somehow those things and a host of other items still were found.

---

Quote:

---

Friday, February 16, 2007 03:30
Rap, Every single thing you post is a recycled talking point. Do you have any thoughts to call your own?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What you said was "They weren't too concerned about those being found, so it leads us to wonder what they WERE hiding." That seems to imply there was some sort of misdirection about what was hiddne and what was REALLY hidden. Which sounded like a contradiciton to "Us finding anything connected to his WMD program wasn't " Iraq letting us find anything. They kept those things from us, and we found them. Case closed.

So how am I misinterpreting one or the other sentence?

---