9/11 Panel Find No Link With Iraq

I saw an article a while back that cited a poll in the US that suggested a significant number of the US public had linked Saddam with the 9/11 attacks. It appears the Administration did little to counter this misconception - perhaps even encouraged it.

Will the 9/11 Panel's findings impact on the November election?

Alternatively, will these revelations simply turn more people off politics and result in even fewer people turning out to vote?

I noted, following the low turn out for the European elections, a quote from a Polish source "we have had democracy for 15 years now - it is no longer a novelty, people are pretty much bored with it".

Things happen so quickly these days - it took us about 150 years to get to that stage. <_<

It&#39;s quite hard to compare Polish and the EU by how many people vote.

And we just don&#39;t have too much faith in our current politicians. After some time and the social "adjustment" to it things will go smoother. And anyway, we could have had democracy from &#39;45 but US and UK sold us out in Jalta, Teheran and Poczdam.

Autumn Fox

I would say that was not picking specifically on Poland. The turnout in Scotland was little better. I was simply highlighting a general apathy towards elections and politicians that is common around the world from the US to the Urals. :)

There was a 51% turnout in Northern Ireland. Which, I think, is reasonably high.

But then, I suppose, the electorate have their own mandate when it comes to any kind of democratic process here.

You should have seen the party election broadcasts. I&#39;m surprised anyone turned out at all. John Hume, a man I deeply respect, looked as though he was being worked from the back.

Still more seats for Sinn Fein in the south. Watch this space.

I think we were around 32%, which was pretty poor really.

However, at least RKS&#39;s lot only made sixth place.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@17 June 2004 - 01:11
I think we were around 32%, which was pretty poor really.

However, at least RKS&#39;s lot only made sixth place.

---

I will say that my apathy toward democracy does not come my belief that my vote or my campaigning efforts cannot make a change in society, but rather that things in my world are going well, and it really doesn&#39;t make a difference who wins the next election, I will be fine.

This is a good thing.

So I would suggest that voter apathy may be related to a sense of well being, rather than a sense of futility. People deeply dissatisfied with their standard of living are very political.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+17 June 2004 - 00:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 17 June 2004 - 00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@17 June 2004 - 01:11
I think we were around 32%, which was pretty poor really.

However, at least RKS&#39;s lot only made sixth place.

---

I will say that my apathy toward democracy does not come my belief that my vote or my campaigning efforts cannot make a change in society, but rather that things in my world are going well, and it really doesn&#39;t make a difference who wins the next election, I will be fine.

This is a good thing.

So I would suggest that voter apathy may be related to a sense of well being, rather than a sense of futility. People deeply dissatisfied with their standard of living are very political. [/b][/quote]
Fair point actually.

Indeed, there is a sense in which many want the politicians to do as little as possible for fear of upsetting the mechanism - effectively disengaging them from the political process further.

I note there are arguments in the US that the political processes and freedoms are being subverted under the guise of protection from terror. This seems perhaps a little overstated to me, but is there any sense in which people in the US do feel that liberties are being taken with Liberty? Which rather ties in with my original question regarding the direction taken by the current administration and the likely impact on the November election.

Well, we really didnt have much choice to vote in Biggles...


The Extreme Right (BNP), Far Right (Tory), Right (Labour), Centre but still slightly to the Right (Lib Dem) or Green...


Scotland and Wales had a little more choice.





(For European Elections, replace BNP with Independance Party)

The news that Saddam and 9/11 are not related will have no bearing on the November election.

People will simply say that if left alone Saddam would have pursued the development of nuclear and chemical weapons and would have gladly supplied them to any terrorist group to bomb America as they pleased.

His elimination will be viewed as a pre-emptive strike so that we don&#39;t have to react after the fact, as in 9/11.

Come in too late (the World Wars), you are criticised. Snuff out a glowing ember before it creates a blaze, you are criticized. America is in a "can&#39;t win" situation.

On voter turn out, there has been some interesting comments made in Australia lately regarding the Midnight Oil front man Peter Garret being enlisted by the Labor party (leftish) to run in a safe Labor seat. There have been lots of questions about whether Garret has actually voted in the last 10 years - he has a "silent enrolment", meaning he is registered to vote, but doesn&#39;t list his address.

Interestingly, about 15% of Australians who are eligable to vote have never actually got around to putting themselves on the electoral roll, and that in every election about another 7% don&#39;t bther to show up at a polling booth.

So in Australia, where voting is compulsary only about 78% of people who should vote actually do&#33;


Back on topic, I think biggles is right that the Bush administration did nothing to discourage rumours about an Iraqi link with 9/11. The ambiguous and misleading statments along the lines of "We have been attacked by terrorists and Iraq is a terrorist nation", obviously didn&#39;t hurt Bush&#39;s case for a war against Iraq as he was able to point to public sentiment and say that his people were worried about being attacked by Iraq and so he acted to protect them. Which is a load of crap.

I think the biggest issue American voters need to take into account, is who lies the most and vote for the other guy.

I know a lot of people are harping on about Kerry not being consistant, but Bush on the other hand has a very consistant history of outright lies.

I saw part of a documentary last night called "Warship at War", about the USS Abraham Lincoln preparing for and taking part in Gulf War 2.

The overriding motivation of the crew seemed to be "Ok, Iraq, now you are going to get payback for 9/11". Occasionally Iraq was replaced by Saddam.

I wonder how they will be feeling, knowing they attacked a country and killed tens of thousands for something in which they had no part.

http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/t...ures/cobra.jpghttp://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/okwild/m...estdiamond.jpg

Bin Laden and Hussein were labeled as terrorists by Bush.

Now, Bin Laden (the Cobra) had already biten us and we went to Afghanistan to attempt to kill him.

Bush says, "Hey, let us learn a lesson. Kill the poisonous snake before he bites". Just because Saddam (the western diamondback rattlesnake) is in no way related to the Cobra and has not yet bitten us, they are both still threats.

So attempting to learn from the Cobra, we identify and remove the Rattler.

Whether the rattler had fangs or not is a matter of debate.

My point is that Iraq not being involved in 9/11 is a triviality. Saddam was labeled as a threat to our country and he was removed. Bush used the 9/11 event as his excuse for getting rid of Saddam, but in no way needed to rely on a link to Bin Laden to carry out his plan.

Biggles asked if the findings of the 9/11 hearing will effect the November election. I am merely pointing out why I think it won&#39;t.

The entire 9/11 commission was a waste of time and money. It was just partisan bickering from both sides that each other was wrong.

Look at what they released today; on 9/11 we weren’t prepared to shoot down an aircraft that had been hijacked. No kidding. We pretty much figured out everything the day’s following the attacks.

We didn’t need a commission to tell us that we screwed up. We had intelligence failures, we didn’t have plans in place in case something like this happened and so on, nothing new.

Hobbes,

On your arguments....


I fail to see one nation on the planet that is not a security threat to the US of A.


A country that was virtually a 3rd world country, after nearly 20 years of warfair...and over the last 12 years had most of its Military and Civilian infrastructure destroyed was a threat, they were anti-american. Even though most of the world laughed at the idea and were proven correct.

There are a lot of anti-american countries.... all now security risks that must be taken out by your argument.

There are anti-american sentiments in every nation that is an ally...and Bush says that "If you aint for us, your against us"...so as these "anti-americans" arent being rounded up, they too are security risks by your argument.


And there are many elements in the US that are wholley against all this crap, so i guess you&#39;ll be getting ready to round them all up now...



Tell me..... where does it stop?

I think you may have missed the point of the thread.

My stance on the war and whether it was justified or not, has been discussed elsewhere.

Look it the wording I used:

Whether the rattler had fangs or not is a matter of debate.

Bush used the 9/11 event as his excuse for getting rid of Saddam.

I am arguing not for myself, but trying to figure out the pulse of my country, how they will react to the 9/11 report. I never thought there were links.


Biggles asked if the the conclusion of the 9/11 committee that no links between Iraq and Al Queda existed will have an effect on the upcoming election.

I am merely stating that to Americans, a link to Al Queda was not the pivot point needed to justify our actions.

BTW, the rest of the world suspected that Saddam had WMD, not the other way around. You sound a bit angry and unlike yourself.


Skweeky, I think you will find this link relevant in regard to where it would stop.

in answer to the original question, no it won&#39;t have any effect on the elections, or at least very little.
Voters have mostly made up their minds. Those that oppose bush will see this as vindication of what they have been saying in regards to connections. Those that support bush will brush it aside and suggest that Iraq was for other reasons and this element of report is irrelivent and indeed the commision is.
Either way minds are pretty much made up.

Hobbes

An interesting analogy.

Some time ago in India, there was a programme to remove cobras from paddy fields, as they were dangerous. The crop yield plummeted as rats ate the rice. Very soon afterwards cobras were re-introduced to the paddy fields.

Whilst I understand the argument that it is important to move against those that will attack you - it is generally accepted that it is best to move against those who pose a genuine threat. I could not see this in Iraq and consider the diplomatic and political initiatives were performing well in that circumstance. Nothing that has happened since has done much to convince me otherwise.

Regarding the impact on the elections, I happily accept your analysis. I do not know enough about US politics to gainsay in the matter. However, it does appear to be causing Tony Blair difficulties.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@17 June 2004 - 19:29
BTW, the rest of the world suspected that Saddam had WMD.

---

I&#39;ve heard this comment a few times recently, usually from people who know better.

Frankly, it is absolute bullshit.

Most of the world DIDN&#39;T believe he had WMD, that&#39;s why there was no backing for the proposed UN resolution.

They were asking questions of americans on the report in the Radio news while i was driving earlier...

Now remember, that this was radio, and they like their ratings...but the jist they tried to get across was...

The Rednecks didnt believe the report, and still think that Iraq was involved directly with 9/11... I say Rednecks, as i didnt hear varying accents, and thats what they sounded like, so i do not want to generalise "americans"...if that makes sense :s




BTW...

It was me posted earlier Hobbes, i didnt realise i was in on Skweekies account, and i didnt mean to sound angry.. :blink:

Iknow your stance etc... i was merely pointing out the flaw to the argument :P

Quote:

---

BTW, the rest of the world suspected that Saddam had WMD, not the other way around.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Crap, the ones that went in with you didnt believe it, never mind the majority of the world that condemned it.

Oh wait...I remember those millions upon millions of people Demonstrating worldwide in favour....NOT

Getting back on topic:

The question was whether the 9/11 Commission&#39;s report failing to find a link between Saddam and the events of 9/11 would sway the American voters in November.

Read carefully, please:

It was never the contention of the Bush administration that Saddam was responsible, even in part, for 9/11; rather, that he had connections with Al Qaeda.

The Commission&#39;s determinations (Commission member Jim Thompson reiterated this today) in no way indicate a conclusion that such a link did not exist; they didn&#39;t address the question, as it was not in their purview-they were merely charged with determining whether a link existed between Saddam and 9/11.

Thompson today stated that Bush and Cheney might very well have strong evidence of such a link, but that such evidence was not germane to the duties of the 9/11 Commission.

There is no reason, then, to assume all this would have any effect whatsoever on the Presidential election.

Given this circumstance, it could be concluded that, by ignorantly and innocently discussing this non-issue, the members of this board are attempting to interfere in the internal politics of the United States.

EDIT: BTW-Thompson further noted that such evidence as Bush may have was not plumbed by the commission, as, again, it was not their purview; they had no entree to even question whether such evidence exists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2004 - 20:53


Given this circumstance, it could be concluded that, by ignorantly and innocently discussing this non-issue, the members of this board are attempting to interfere in the internal politics of the United States.

---

Oh-oh&#33;

Does this mean we will be invaded? :ph34r: :)


Whilst there may not have been a specific link made by Rumsfeld et al, (although again, some very ambigious statements have been made in this regard over the last couple of years) there was, rightly or wrongly, such a linkage in the minds of the general public; if opinion polls are to be believed (which I agree, is debateable).

Consequently, I wondered, if by refuting this link in their conclusions, the Panel would raise questions of trust in the minds of the voters given the ongoing cost of Iraq in blood and money.

Regarding any actual connections that may or may not have existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I am unaware of any actual event or material support of this nature. These accusations always seem to be of the vague, the scary monster will get you, type - never specific examples.

As far as I have seen to date, Saddams connections were with Palestinian groups, mainly Arafat&#39;s people. This, as far as one can tell, was to play to the Arabic crowd more than any deep seated ideological commitment on his part.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 21:02

Quote:

---

BTW, the rest of the world suspected that Saddam had WMD, not the other way around.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Crap, the ones that went in with you didnt believe it, never mind the majority of the world that condemned it.

Oh wait...I remember those millions upon millions of people Demonstrating worldwide in favour....NOT

---

Those people were protesting against war, I didn&#39;t hear of a single person clearly stating what Saddam did or did not have.

The governments were concerned he might have them, the people would have no way of knowing without just simply guessing. So uninformed speculation is irrelevant.

I found no pre-war thread in World News stating that Saddam didn&#39;t have WMD. Rat Faced, you clearly weren&#39;t sure. Now people are stating, "Well, the entire world knew he didn&#39;t have them&#33;". The truth is that nobody really knew.

RatFaced:

Quote:

---

IF WMD are found, and none have been so far (although there are some now being tested) then you have &#39;the smoking gun&#39;.

---

The protests were directed at how do deal with the situation and not whether Saddam had WMD or not.

As for backing the UN proposal, that was just politics as usual. France and Russia had economic issues with Iraq. The US wanted something from Iraq. What we have here is a bit of conflict of interests. The UN has little to do with right or wrong, but politicians voting to look out for their country&#39;s interests.

But as I have said before, I am not here to justify the war, I think my stance is well documented, just to humbly answer Biggles question.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@17 June 2004 - 20:51
Hobbes

Whilst I understand the argument that it is important to move against those that will attack you - it is generally accepted that it is best to move against those who pose a genuine threat. I could not see this in Iraq and consider the diplomatic and political initiatives were performing well in that circumstance. Nothing that has happened since has done much to convince me otherwise.

---

Biggles,


My words were chosen with care. I was addressing the issue from what Bush was selling to the people. I stated that Bush labeled Sadam a terrorist on par with Bin Laden, and was therefore a threat.

I did not say he was a threat, but that Bush told us he was.


That is why I commented on whether the snake had teeth. Meaning that Bush may have "sexed up" Saddams potentional risk to the US. He showed us a scary rattlesnake, but did he know that that snake had no fangs?


A much better analogy would have been, did George knowingly try and portray a king snake as a coral snake.

http://www.agfc.com/critters/gallery...lsnake_big.jpg

Image Resized
[img]http://www.stetson.edu/~pmay/woodruff/sking.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

One of these snakes is deadly the other is harmless.

I have an honest question I would like answered:

Given that people (politicians, in this case) may, knowingly or not, say things, make statements, what-have-you, and "imply", "infer", or "intend" something other than what is said to be taken from the utterance in question.....

.....isn&#39;t it likewise true that the "listener", depending on his or her particular bent, could hear something that was neither actually said, nor intended to be "gathered"?

This phenomenon has afflicted the Bush administration ever since 9/11, it seems.

Mssr. Kerry should beware, addicted as he is to the "art" of nuance. ;)

Input?

EDIT: Hobbes-

Always remember:

Red on yellow, kill a fellow, red on black, friend of Jack.

Hobbes

Agreed, I had not intended to suggest that you supported the assertions regarding Saddam one way or another.

J2K4

Following the poll that appeared to find that 55% of under 30s did not know who the US troops were fighting on D-Day, I am at a complete loss as to what people claim to understand or think they understand from any given piece of information. On the whole, I find it all a touch depressing.

I would agree, however, that given such an impressionable and apparently blank canvas with which to work, it would be wise for all in the public domain to ensure that there is no ambiguity in what they say. The temptation to make use of nuances and implied suggestions will, I fear, prove too great.

..and that melancholy note I shall take myself to bed. Goodnight all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2004 - 13:53


Read carefully, please:

It was never the contention of the Bush administration that Saddam was responsible, even in part, for 9/11; rather, that he had connections with Al Qaeda.

---

Baloney, j2.
The Bush administration, using Cheney as the plausibly deniable mouthpiece has, in the past and continuing today, done all that it could to link Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of the American and worldwide public.
In his desperate efforts to justify the war that he feels he was born to lead, Bush has consistently thrown the widest, most comprehensive net of "evidence" that he could.
Now, such evidence being discredited, Bush et.al. claim they never actually said these things.

Short Attention Span Theater, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+17 June 2004 - 18:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 17 June 2004 - 18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 June 2004 - 13:53


Read carefully, please:

It was never the contention of the Bush administration that Saddam was responsible, even in part, for 9/11; rather, that he had connections with Al Qaeda.

---

Baloney, j2.
The Bush administration, using Cheney as the plausibly deniable mouthpiece has, in the past and continuing today, done all that it could to link Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of the American and worldwide public.
In his desperate efforts to justify the war that he feels he was born to lead, Bush has consistently thrown the widest, most comprehensive net of "evidence" that he could.
Now, such evidence being discredited, Bush et.al. claim they never actually said these things.

Short Attention Span Theater, indeed.[/b][/quote]
What proof, pray tell?

I have the memory of the elephant that I am; neither Bush nor Cheney ever said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, though they drew a very direct line from Saddam to Al Qaeda, and terrorists in general.

People who want to believe otherwise will do so, absent any evidence for or against the fact.

On the other hand, what am I to do with all the old quotes from those who lately are gainsaying themselves with regard to WMD?

lynx-

I am sure there were at least a few people on the planet who still don&#39;t think Saddam ever had WMD, so you are technically correct, I suppose, but what exactly were the U.N. weapons inspectors looking for, and on whose behalf?

Or are you positing that Saddam had divested himself of them prior to the war?

Confused, I am. :huh:

Still looking for some extrapolation on my other post, guys....

Quote:

---

to our country and he was removed

---

so it&#39;s all about america? i&#39;m pretty sure u guys are fighting the war of israel, just a thought, and ur analogy is a good one (snakes), but it&#39;s still doesn&#39;t justify the tens of thousands killed in iraq (mostly, wait, almost 100% civs), and dont give me that bullshit about casualties of war because whenever a soldier dies they are on the front pages, whenever an iraqi civ dies it&#39;s a "just cause", i have no anger towards americans, just their way of thinking and their politicians <_< . saddam was no threat to america and the world knew it, israel was scared shitless because of the supposed WMD&#39;s, and america (govt)? hell i don&#39;t even know why they had to do wat they did

What Bush prayed on was the uneducated voter.

9/11 happened

We send troops to Afghanistan to strike at the supposed home of Al Qaeda.

We then send troops to Iraq shortly afterwards.

We make reference to Bin Laden and Hussein in the same sentence.
(he&#39;s just as dangerous as..., he&#39;s on par with......)

Then there&#39;s this talk from the uneducated.

"I bet Saddam had something to do with 9/11."
"He hated America anyways."
"All the Arabs are working to together."

Speculation is one thing but actually believing the far fetched with no proof is another.

Believe it or not elections are won with simply the planting of information or misinformation.

One person hears some shocking news that backs their candidate...but doesn&#39;t hear the refutation.

Then there are those that hear the refutation but block it out because their mind is made up.

"I always vote Democrat."
"He&#39;s pro-life and that&#39;s all I care about."
"He sent my boy to die for nothing."


btw
Stating that there could be a connection is a political way of giving a reason for action some teeth.

The uneducated take shouldacouldawoulda as fact on many occasions.

There could be a connection between my dick and my best friend&#39;s wife&#39;s pussy.

It doesn&#39;t mean I fucked her. <_<

a good post busy and it is relevent to all sides of the political spectrum to some extent. Just because we are talking a specific topic doesn&#39;t make that statement limited.

however i can&#39;t help wondering one thing...

Quote:

---

There could be a connection between my dick and my best friend&#39;s wife&#39;s pussy.

It doesn&#39;t mean I fucked her.

---

you must have thought about it :lol: :lol: :lol: although where does her cat come into it ? :blink: :helpsmile:

I guess Kerry will just have to restore Saddam to power. :frusty: Since he&#39;s innocent of the charge.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@18 June 2004 - 05:29
There could be a connection between my dick and my best friend&#39;s wife&#39;s pussy.

It doesn&#39;t mean I fucked her. <_<

---

That is one of the reasons I hate hearing the words "link" or "connection" coming out of a politician&#39;s mouth. What do these words mean?

Bush: Iraqi intelligence officers met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida.

So? The CIA has connections with both of them as well.

It is kind of like the age-old (well not really) question: How is a steam roller like a fish?

They are both made up of atoms.


Christ, we have worked out the 6 degrees of separation theory, if you go back far enough you can connect anybody with anything - the part that isn&#39;t really expained to us poor cretins is wheather there is a significant link between bin Laden and Saddam (or any other "link" between two points that serves as an excuse to do whatever they want).

[SARCASM] Is that guy a terrorist? Did you catch him with a bomb?

No, but there he has a link with terrorist organisations - His sister&#39;s half cousin twice removed used to live down the street from a woman who ran a cake stall for the school fete and in Ausgust 1978 she sold a choc-chip cookie to a man (now deceased) who fathered an illigitimate child to an Iranian goat herd&#39;s aunt. That goat herd later went on to be head tobacconist to an Iraqi sheik, who once bribed one of Saddam&#39;s guards to look the other way while his nephew sold a gold watch to a Turkish businessman and used the money to help pay his taxes to That Evil Dictator who we thought had weapons of mass destruction that he may have used against Isreali troops, and we support the Isrealis, so our suspect has to be locked up&#33;

[/SARCASM]

Am I too cynical?

Quote:

---

Red on yellow, kill a fellow, red on black, friend of Jack.

---

So I&#39;m takin it as the top one being the killer.... :lol:
Hiya j2k4... How are ya? :tank:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex H@18 June 2004 - 07:15
...Am I too cynical?

---

Cynical would be using the Oracle of Bacon.

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by protak@18 June 2004 - 00:15

Quote:

---

Red on yellow, kill a fellow, red on black, friend of Jack.

---

So I&#39;m takin it as the top one being the killer.... :lol:
Hiya j2k4... How are ya? :tank:

---

Fine as frog&#39;s hair, sir.

Yourself? :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor+18 June 2004 - 03:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 18 June 2004 - 03:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@18 June 2004 - 07:15
...Am I too cynical?

---

Cynical would be using the Oracle of Bacon.

:ninja: [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just so- :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@17 June 2004 - 23:29
What Bush prayed on was the uneducated voter.

9/11 happened

We send troops to Afghanistan to strike at the supposed home of Al Qaeda.

We then send troops to Iraq shortly afterwards.

We make reference to Bin Laden and Hussein in the same sentence.
(he&#39;s just as dangerous as..., he&#39;s on par with......)

Then there&#39;s this talk from the uneducated.

"I bet Saddam had something to do with 9/11."
"He hated America anyways."
"All the Arabs are working to together."

Speculation is one thing but actually believing the far fetched with no proof is another.

Believe it or not elections are won with simply the planting of information or misinformation.

One person hears some shocking news that backs their candidate...but doesn&#39;t hear the refutation.

Then there are those that hear the refutation but block it out because their mind is made up.

"I always vote Democrat."
"He&#39;s pro-life and that&#39;s all I care about."
"He sent my boy to die for nothing."


btw
Stating that there could be a connection is a political way of giving a reason for action some teeth.

The uneducated take shouldacouldawoulda as fact on many occasions.

There could be a connection between my dick and my best friend&#39;s wife&#39;s pussy.

It doesn&#39;t mean I fucked her. <_<

---

I must say, an excellent post; well-reasoned, and extremely well written.

I don&#39;t need to agree with it to say that, although I do agree, in large part. ;)

The last part is especially effective. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@18 June 2004 - 00:51


I am sure there were at least a few people on the planet who still don&#39;t think Saddam ever had WMD, so you are technically correct, I suppose, but what exactly were the U.N. weapons inspectors looking for, and on whose behalf?

Or are you positing that Saddam had divested himself of them prior to the war?

Confused, I am. :huh:

---

As I understood it, Saddam claimed that he had, in accordance with UN demands after GW1, destroyed his stockpiles of WMD. (By 2003 most of his 1980s stock would have been past their sell by date anyway) He was further tasked to produce, in short time, a comprehensive document detailing the steps taken to dispose of them.

The UN inspectors in late 2002 early 2003 were not looking for WMD - they were endeavouring to verify the documented evidence of destruction. Although there were gaps the signs were relatively encouraging and the UN inspectors were keen to continue their work. The US and the UK and a handful of others (I am sorry, but when the list has to include the Marshall Islands to bolster the numbers it really is a few) were unwilling to wait - for some reason that appears to be no longer clear on this side of the Atlantic at least.

We are now at the situation that well after a year of occupation and 6 months after the capture of Saddam and most of his aides there are still no WMDs and the things barely get mentioned anymore. Indeed, Tony Blair usually mentions WMD through gritted teeth along with dark mutterings about failures in intelligence.

Biggles, Biggles, Biggles.
Wake up and smell the coffee.

Much like the alleged Iraq-Al-Quida linkage, the WMD are a non-issue.
At least to Bush and his apologists.

You see, it turns out that they never actually made those claims.
Video to the contrary, we were all hallucinating.

There was a good reason for this debacle.
Give them another week or two and the Bushies will come up with it.

Till then, just sit tight knowing that you are being protected by a man of "great moral clarity".

That&#39;s right...Don King is on the job.

:o

Don King is president??


Where is that coffee? I have slept longer than I thought and things have taken a turn for the worse.........well maybe, on second thoughts, worse is perhaps the wrong word. Better, I think I meant better. :lol:

I have to say I do like some of the explanations. I think Rumsfeld in particular is a master at complete obfustication.