🚀 go-pugleaf

Hey Slim you liberal MF.  What are you doing by posting facts.  Facts
blow the righties' claims clear out of the water!

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:00:12 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:

>On 2007-07-06 06:41:29 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:13:19 GMT, Al Giazirra
>> <thatsme@realitalianlastname.com > wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:57:53 GMT, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:22:43 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2007-07-04 10:12:12 -0400, Joeseph P. Blow <jpblow@gmail.com> said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now you're claiming Iraq was a threat to our nation and _THAT's_ why
>>>>>> bush attacked?
>>>> 
>>>> Here ya go, moron... Get someone to explain this to ya...
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11
>>>>> Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
>>>>> Tuesday September 12, 2006
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> "I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not 
>>>>> responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that 
>>>>> the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Liberals ARE this stupid.
>>>> 
>>>> Mike Smith
>>> 
>>> Stupid for posting what that president said or stupid for actually
>>> remembering it?
>> 
>> No, dumbass. Can't you follow a thread?  No one claimed Iraq was
>> responsible for 9-11. The buffoon is arguing about nothing in
>> dispute... That's what's stupid...
>
>from the March 14, 2003 edition - 
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
>The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
>American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case 
>for war.
>By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
>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."