GOP lawmaker: Saddam linked to 9/11

[Larry]

Originally posted by jpillian

This is Saddam Hussein here, folks. Iraq. The butt of all jokes during the 90's as to what America was willing to overlook to ensure a state of peace and balance of power that would perpetuate it's runaway case of gluttony and obsession with all things comfortable.

This is Saddam Hussein, here, "folks". The butt of all jokes about a powerless blowhard who had delusions of being a threat.

[@DCGoldPants]

and for all the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" folks.

Saudia Arabia must be a f'ing chimney then.

Where is the outcry to invade them?

[Kilmer17]

I think we should go to S.A. next.

I do have a question I heard on the radio last night (cant recall which show).

Can someone show me a poll showing that a significant number of Americans actually think that their is a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Not a piece talking about it, but an actual poll showing it?

Point being, I dont think it exists. I think it's a talking point used by the left and the left media to somehow say "SEE BUSH LIED AGAIN!"

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I think we should go to S.A. next.

I do have a question I heard on the radio last night (cant recall which show).

Can someone show me a poll showing that a significant number of Americans actually think that their is a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Not a piece talking about it, but an actual poll showing it?

Point being, I dont think it exists. I think it's a talking point used by the left and the left media to somehow say "SEE BUSH LIED AGAIN!"

I'd love to see a poll. I can only speak from sound bites on TV and from my experience with friends and people I've been around.

IMO, MANY people do think there is a connection. I don't think that's just a left slant, I think many of the conservatives feel that way. Read many of the posts here. There's a heck of a lot of people who say that there many not be PROOF of a connection, but they believe it was there OR that the connection would have taken place in the future.

[Kilmer17]

Count me as one who thinks there would have been a connection with Saddam and "X" terror group attacking the US in the future.

But the hubbub about Bush connecting Saddam to 9/11 is based on some mystical poll that apparently doesnt exist.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think a lot of folks don't like the idea of fighting a war that could been a mistake.

Anything that could possibly justify that it was correct, they'll grab onto.

Not to mention the VP going on "News" programs and saying he has info that 9/11 commish doesn't about Saddam and 9/11. But after talking to them again, nothing changing.

Nobody remembers the 2nd part, only the VP saying he has info that the 9/11 commish doesn't about the two being connected.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

But the hubbub about Bush connecting Saddam to 9/11 is based on some mystical poll that apparently doesnt exist.

I misunderstood you.

I think Bush purposely talks about 9/11 and Saddam/Iraq closely because of the IMPLIED connection, but I don't believe he's ever came out and said there was a connection.

The fact that some think he has problably IS a left slant. That's where I misunderstood you.

I think the way he implies the connection is what makes the ignorant joe think there is. Skillfully done by Bush and company, which IMO, may as well be lying. He just knows not to cross the actual line.

[@DCGoldPants]

what's code is saying (if I'm reading it correctly) is.

He says it, without directly saying it.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by codeorama

I misunderstood you.

I think Bush purposely talks about 9/11 and Saddam/Iraq closely because of the IMPLIED connection, but I don't believe he's ever came out and said there was a connection.

The fact that some think he has problably IS a left slant. That's where I misunderstood you.

I think the way he implies the connection is what makes the ignorant joe think there is. Skillfully done by Bush and company, which IMO, may as well be lying. He just knows not to cross the actual line.

I have yet to see any proof that this poll Of "60 percent of Americans" showing we think their was a connection.

I think he talks about them together because one shows the end result of not addressing a risk properly.

But the main point Im making is that the left continues to say Bush makes the connection and people believe him, when in fact, there is no evidence showing Americans believe there was a link.

[Spaceman Spiff]

[@DCGoldPants]

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

its an oldie.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

But the main point Im making is that the left continues to say Bush makes the connection and people believe him, when in fact, there is no evidence showing Americans believe there was a link.

If the "left" says that Bush actually makes the connection, they are wrong, no doubt.

But I 100% believe that a poll would show that most people do think the 2 are connected, not because Bush says so, but because it is implied.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Bufford

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

its an oldie.

There you go. Even if it's old, it gets the point across.

[Kilmer17]

Id say so.

2 years old.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by codeorama

If the "left" says that Bush actually makes the connection, they are wrong, no doubt.

But I 100% believe that a poll would show that most people do think the 2 are connected, not because Bush says so, but because it is implied.

Im not so sure Code. Maybe, but the point is, the left is claiming that data exists currently, and it doesnt.

I think 20 percent of the country thinks we made the whole 9/11 tragedy up and bombed our own buildings.

But if we're going to start with the prmise that "Bush is implying their is a connection and "X" percent believe it" We should be basing that on actual facts.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

But if we're going to start with the prmise that "Bush is implying their is a connection and "X" percent believe it" We should be basing that on actual facts.

I'm saying I believe that Bush is implying it.

Look at his speech, how many times did he mention 9/11 in a speach about Iraq?

[Kilmer17]

Okay, let's cede that point for a moment.

Bush is implying it. Where though, is the evidence that people eare believing the connection?

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Okay, let's cede that point for a moment.

Bush is implying it. Where though, is the evidence that people eare believing the connection?

Look at the poll bufford posted... 70%. Yes, it's 2 years old, but I bet if that same poll was done, it would be at least 60%. Just my opinion.

[Kilmer17]

That's my point Code, you may THINK that, but the left is claiming it as fact. And then using that "fact" to slam the President.

I think a poll today would show less than 30 percent of people think Saddam was part of 9/11.

But I bet 80% would say he was linked to terror groups.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

That's my point Code, you may THINK that, but the left is claiming it as fact. And then using that "fact" to slam the President.

I think a poll today would show less than 30 percent of people think Saddam was part of 9/11.

But I bet 80% would say he was linked to terror groups.

I'm agreeing with you that it's not fact.

I don't agree with you about a poll though, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm not sure about the terror group link myself. Again, the US has supported terrorists, so that's kind of a moot point.

[Bang]

Why do people insist on making this connection anyway?

Pull your heads out.

Look, we're in Iraq because we're committed to fighting a war against an enemy who is largely faceless, nationless, and ruthless. The only thing we know about him for sure is he hails largely from the middle east. He doesn't wear a flag, he doesn't wear a uniform, he walks among our troops and our people as if he is an innocent bystander. He is Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian, Afghan, Iranian, he doesn't care what nation his soldiers are from. He doesn't care about borders or rules of engagement or anything like that at all.

People have said.. "Why didn't we fight this war in Afghanistan, where Al Quaida is?"

well, we are, but you cannot fight a large scale engagement there at our present position, and especially our position 3 years ago.

Afghanistan is landlocked, surrounded by mountains and enemies. To put a large force in there is to put them in a position of suicidal weakness. Re-supply is difficult at best, especially if air transports start getting shot down. Retreat is friggin' impossible if everything goes badly. Bloodbath likely. Slaughter likely.

Folks have said, "why don't we invade the Saudis, where we know the real enemies are?"

All things in due time. We may not invade Saudi Arabia, but if we had without taking out Iraq's forces first, then what would happen?

Iraq had the largest military in the region in terms of manpower. this military was in the hands of a definite hostile. Had we fought anyplace else, you think Saddam Hussein would not have jumped to the cause to help his Islamic brothers throw out the infidels? To join forces and create the jihad? this "jihad" is their only hope, and the terrorists know it. The only sway they have over the people other than violence is religious fervor. If they can create their holy war and get the arab world behind it, they will achieve what they have been trying to do for decades. As it is now, the Arab world doesn't seem to be behind the insurgency anymore. Most of them have been content to sit back and 'see what happens" in this war. MOST of them seem to me to be wanting stability and peace just as much as we do.

No matter what, to fight in the middle east for a long term campaign, the Iraqi army HAD to be dealt with. To believe that we could have fought this 'war on terror' and left them alone would be to set yourself up for a military disaster.

As it is, we decided to take out the big boys on the block first. Also, what this has done, as is plenty evidenced, is effectively stood out in the street and called these terrorist factions out.

And lo and behold, HERE they come. These insurgents,, we know they are by and large NOT from Iraq. We know they are affiliated, supplied, and led by Al Quaida operatives. We have found the enemy and forced him to fight on what is somewhat our terms. Of course, car bombs and stuff... can't make them stop doing that,, it's the only weapons they really have... BUT,, suicide bombers are a finite resource. Eventually, they run out. Throughout history, suicide attacks have never been an effective means to win, and they have been used in practically every conflict there has ever been.. usually by a force who's power is dwindling and desperation has set in.

Japanese did it,, Germans did it, too, but it's not reported so much. Germany used squads of fighter pilots who's job was to take up antiquated aircraft, and ram bomber fleets. They also created manned torpedoes that were used quite a bit when the allies began to destroy the U-Boat forces.

People who insist on this forging this link are looking at this conflict from nothing more than a political standpoint. War is not something in which every action is justifiable. even in the most noble of crusades there has been doubt, fear, and worry.

From a tactical and strategic standpoint, in regards to pursuing this war, neutralizing Iraq and their hostile government was and is essential.

If not, then we'd have just ended up fighting them on their terms rather than on ours.

As it is now, they have nothing left but this insurgency. And insurgencies DO last a long time. I mentioned in another post just how long the "werewolf" insurgents operated in Germany after the end of WW2 using the same tactics as our current enemy.. For YEARS that went on. Some people never give up until they are dead, simply put.

So, let's see how many of you think this would have been possible...

Bush: Hey, uh Saddam,, hey, listen, uh, we gotta come over there and stp these terrorists,, i mean, hey, look, they've just gone too far knocking over the world trade center, and we gotta do something about it.

Saddam: OK< George,, tell you what,, you go right ahead, and as long as you don't disrupt my tee time, we'll be OK with it.

Bush: excellent, Saddam, I always knew you were a stand up guy. Listen, when we get into afghanistan we're going to have to maybe move some supply dumps close to your border,,, now don't worry, it'll be up there in turkey with those Kurds you love so much,, but don't fret none, cause I'm sure those boys wouldn't think of taking some of those munitions and trying to overthrow you or anything.

Saddam: Aw, those guys are OK, George,, just a little fun, you know,, go ahead,, put ammo dumps and air bases near my border. i won't care,, just don't fly over my place to early in the morning, I like to sleep in.

George: Now, what if we attack Saudi Arabia, you gonna be ok with that? If we do, we'll establish mil,itary strength right up along a very large border of yours... and we'll also have control over all that oil in which to fuel our machines... that won't come into your country, I swear.

Saddam: No Problem george! If there's one thing I am, it's trusting! I won't have any problem at all with you massing on two of my borders. Tell you what,, you tell me when, and I'll send all my soldiers on vacation to France. They'll love it, and we'll get some peace and quiet for a change.

Bush: excellent! I knew we could count on your support!

Get it?

Sometimes military decision are made based on military strategy. Sometimes those decisions must outweigh public opinion... and in an even MORE shocking revelation, SOMETIMES military decisions are kept SECRET!! Oh MY!

another scenario..

1942.. hey mr and mrs American,, give uys your boys to fight the Nazis and Japs! You know we have to fight, and when we do, we're going to lose nearly 3000 men on D-Day alone! We're going to be slaughtered like lambs while we hop across the Pacific! Six out of every ten of our bombers will be shot down over Europe in the next 4 years! Who's with me!?

Anyone?

I didn't think so.

This "link" is not necessary to justify this action.

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by codeorama

I'm agreeing with you that it's not fact.

I don't agree with you about a poll though, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm not sure about the terror group link myself. Again, the US has supported terrorists, so that's kind of a moot point.

It's is absolute proven fact that he supported terror groups. Hezbollah being the most prominent. It's also fact he gave money to the families of homicide bombers.

We can disagree about what a poll may show, but we certainly can agree that the poll ( a current one) doesnt exist.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

It's is absolute proven fact that he supported terror groups. Hezbollah being the most prominent. It's also fact he gave money to the families of homicide bombers.

We can disagree about what a poll may show, but we certainly can agree that the poll ( a current one) doesnt exist.

Let me rephrase, I believe he's probably in some way helped terrorists, I meant that , I'm not sure that qualifies us to go to war with him.

Again, We have helped terrorists, Russia has, I'm betting many more have as well. Were do we stop?

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667

yikes

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545/

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Bufford

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667

yikes

That's lower than I would have thought, but considering that Rumsfeld has said there was no link (as well as others), that is a scary stat.