62% of republicans thinks sadam was involved in 9/11

DrewDad wrote

Quote:

I presume that the point of the thread is to show that Republicans are uninformed idiots.

That was the correct reason Drew.

But because i actually did not explain that, Brandon also has the right to presume whatever he wants.

Then again i thought it was obvious.

Sorry folks.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Because it's close enough. Even if that wasn't the purpose in the author's mind, some people would take it that way.

Well, you did. That's one.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I have heard countless arguments against the war in Iraq that focus on arguing against a Saddam - 9/11 connection.

In other threads, no doubt.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Besides, it's not a matter of such great urgency that every post be perfect, it's just a message board. Your posts, for instance, aren't always very respectful of the author's stated intention for the thread.

Sadly, that's true, and I grieve for my past indiscretions. But then I never tried to defend them with some cockamamie excuse that I was preemptively responding to a position that the original poster never took.

The New York Times

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2005




On Thursday, the same day New Yorkers were warned there was a "specific threat" of a bombing on their subways, President George W. Bush delivered what the White House promoted as a major address on terrorism. It seemed, on the surface, like a perfect topic for the moment. But his talk was not about America's current challenges. He delivered a reprise of his Sept. 11 rhetoric that suggested an avoidance of today's reality that seemed downright frightening.
The period right after 9/11, for all its pain, was the high point of the Bush presidency. Four years ago, Americans hung on every word when Bush denounced Al Qaeda, and made the emotional - but, as it turned out, empty - vow to track down Osama bin Laden. On Thursday, it seemed as if the president was still trying to live in 2001. It was eerie to hear him urge Americans to take terrorism seriously. There wasn't any reason to worry about that even before subway riders were being told about the threat of a terrorist attack on their commute home.
He seemed to be reading from a very old and familiar script as he revealed that terrorists recruit "disillusioned young men and women," some of whom build weapons based on information available on the Internet. He shared his conviction that "it is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs." He said his team was "reforming our intelligence agency" and reorganizing government for "a broad and coordinated homeland defense."
Ever since the terrorist attacks, the main thing Americans have wanted from Washington is a sense of safety. That takes more than hyperalertness to suicide bombing threats, important as that is. No matter what the terrorists are up to, it is not possible to feel safe if the federal government does not appear to know what it is doing on so many different levels.
Thursday was an ideal moment for Bush to demonstrate that he was really in control of his administration. He could have taken any one of a number of pressing worries and demonstrated that he was on the job, re-examining the problems, working on answers.
For instance, he could have addressed the crisis facing the overstretched military due to the endless demands made by Iraq on both the U.S. Army and the beleaguered National Guard.
The speech came one day after the White House threatened to veto a bill onto which the Senate added a ban on the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against prisoners of the U.S. government.
This president could not find the spine to veto a bloated transportation bill that included wildly wasteful projects like the now-famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. What kind of priorities does that suggest? If Americans ever needed the president to demonstrate that he has a working understanding of exactly where he wants to take the United States, they need it now.
The president's inability to grow beyond his big moment in 2001 is unnerving. But the fact that his handlers continue to encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating. For most Americans, the memories are fresh and painful. They mourn the people who died on Sept. 11, as they mourn Daniel Pearl and other Americans, not to mention innocents from other countries, who were murdered by terrorists. The administration's penchant for using these victims as political cover is offensive. It threatens to turn Americans' wounds, and their current fears, into cynical and desperate spin.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.

I just dont get it.

Do the Republicans watch/read the News ?
You should double-check your own answer to the "read" portion of this question.MSNBC June 17, 2004

9/11 commission: No link between bin Laden and Saddam
The report said no such thing. There were numerous connections, links and meetings between Iraq and OBL et al.

Quote:

THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.[/b]

Gallo Poll October 05, 2004

62% of Republicans think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Personally involved can be directly or indirectly involved. I don't know anyone who thinks SH's assistance was direct--but a lot of people believe he supplied a wealth of indirect assistance.

I wasn't aware that "personal" and "indirect" were synonyms. Live and learn, I guess.

Personally involved can be directly or indirectly involved.

Personally involved can be directly or indirectly involved. I don't know anyone who thinks SH's assistance was direct--but a lot of people believe he supplied a wealth of indirect assistance.

"The Bush administration [has] sent U.S. technology to the Iraqi military and to many Iraqi military factories, despite over-whelming evidence showing that Iraq intended to use the technology in its clandestine nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile programs."