No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13059
PAGE 13 of 15
Quote: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?
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.
As for those murals... We innvaded Iraq because of murals???
Here's a true story about 9-11:
An American businesman in China was watching the news with a room full of Chinese friends. They, like everyone, were glued to the breaking story. But when the towers fell, the people he thought were his friends spontaneously stood up and cheered. There were a LOT of nations that were happy to see the USA bloodied. You're implying that we invaded Iraq because they felt the same. Does that mean we should invade China too?
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?
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:When you say "they" I assume you mean the Iraqi administration. If that's what you mean, then I agree: Saddam wasn't pro-actively complying with UN resolutions. But if you mean "they" the UN, that's where you're wrong. The UN was enforcing compliance. And that was backed up by US threats and nudged by the possibility of lucrative contracts that were just waiting to be inked once the embargo was lifted. It turns out that the reason why the Iraq administration kept everyone in guessing about WMD is because they wanted to keep Iran off-balance. Can we agree at this point that Saddam didn't have a WMD program?
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.
BTW- "all" the intel DIDN'T point to WMD. There was a lot of very credible intel pointing in the other direction: the CIA knew that "curveball" for example was unreliable, and the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You claimed that 85% (or some large majority) of the country were “convinced” that Hussein was responsible for 9/ll, but the Washington Post polls that you cited demonstrates right the opposite. According to that poll only 32% felt that scenario was “very likely,” which might mean “convinced,” but 37% felt that it was “somewhat likely” which does not mean, in any reasonable assessment, “convinced.” In other words, the majority of the country was not, in fact, convinced that Hussein was personally involved in 9/ll.
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?
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.
htm
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
"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.
Basically people made the connection because the press deliberately and with malice aforethough, led them down the garden path right into it, pumping up the flimsiest claims while suppressing anything that contradicted them - and they followed the usual policy of shovelling "The Big Lie" philosophy so common amongst papers, print the bullshit on page one, and two weeks later print a retraction/correction somewhere at the bottom of page fourteen, etc etc.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2829
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842
You might do well to dredge the archives of FAIR.org for details relating to this particular shoveljob, not to mention bias and maliciously inaccurate reporting.
It's a useful source I've found to be generally reliable.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Hussein had far more to do with 9/ll then Hugo Chavez"
REALLY ! Considering they both has zip to do with 9/11, I'd be intereested in how you make this claim.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Many Americans were aware of Hussein’s attempt to assassinate a former US president.
Yet another bullshit fairy-tale from the good folks behind PNAC in their push for war with Iraq.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/articles/020930fr_archive02?0
20930fr_archive02
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:FINN: Do you have any POLLS to back this up? For example, 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.
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.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/18/terror.tape.main/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/sept11_yearlaterpoll020910
.html
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SO, unitl I receive and answer fomr Finn, I conclude that Saddam Hussein was NOT an ongoing concern of the American people, and that they did NOT consider him the culprit for 9-11.
Also, waiting for Rap to either reply yea or nay on the conclusion that Saddam did NOT have a WMD program or WMD in production. Rap- if you think that he did, please show some evidence.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME