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

I'm not trying to defend them.

I'm answering you. I couldn't care less about your boring story of my indiscretions in this thread. You people are wrong about the invasion of Iraq, and wrong about Bush, and you demonstrate it by yapping at my heels about trivia, in lieu of any kind of intelligent support for your various positions.

Use your lawyerly razzle-dazzle. Make a case for the defense--and then the prosecution.

If you are "prosecuting" SH and OBL for culpability in 911, where do you start? You start with establishing a relationship between them. Did they know one another? Did they have reason to work together? Is there any evidence that shows that they were interested in working together toward this goal?

The defense would try to find an alibi for any alleged meetings--say they never contacted one another...they were not interested in the same goal....if they were faced with evidence of meetings, it would look very bad for their clients, but of course, they could then defend them as you are--and say just because there is evidence of several meetings and they are highly motivated to work together and there are clear signs that OBL was calling off his Al Ansar goons for SH, and SH had a Terrorist Med going on...well. That's not proof.

Yeah. OJ got off too.

IMO, neither side has enough evidence to mount a convincing case, so the decision has to made on a preponderance of the evidence.

If there had been no evidence of any meetings or good vibes between them, I wouldn't be having this conversation. I would have shut up about this a couple of years ago.

But, there is more evidence that they DID work together than they DIDN'T.

You won't see me marching in full uniform, blaring that it is a slam dunk case. But, you also won't see me avoid confrontation when some yahoo starts insulting those who think there is credence to the belief SH and OBL possibly worked together. The 62% thinks SH, at least indirectly, assisted with 911. So do I. There is good reason to.

Never said it was proven. I said it was possible and likely.

You are unaware of the conclusions to both men's requests of the other. If you are holding out with the tapes of their conversations, please call the 911 Commission. They'd be quite interested.

We may as well stop, though. You tie the reality of SH and OBL working together with Bush being correct. You'd sooner die than admit it--so you'll never discuss the testimony and the facts rationally.

Huh. I don't know any Republicans that believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Wait, I think you're all missing the point.

Freedom4free is Squinney?

Learning from me would be an improvement to remaining ignorant, I think.

fishin' wrote:

"Severe comment"??? Is that what you call members here throwing insults back and forth at each other?

I call severe comment Squinney's original intention, and I consider it a worthy piece of news.

Yep.


Lol, but you will probably be "disrespecting the troops" or being a traitor, or some other nonsense, by mentioning such a truth to the stubbornly blind 62%, or whatever is left of them....

Lash wrote

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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."

No this quotation is not pulled from a conspiracy-minded website, but from the Congressional Record from July 27, 1992. They are the words of the late Congressman Henry Gonzalez of Texas.

We were also personally involved with Saddam right ?

Lash wrote:

Learning from me would be an improvement to remaining ignorant, I think.

Having no desire to be determinedly misinformed, I think not.

Still waiting for an explanation of how one can reasonably equate "personally involved" with "indirectly involved."

Lash, who's surprised your GPA was so dismal wrote:

Use your lawyerly razzle-dazzle. Make a case for the defense--and then the prosecution.

If you are "prosecuting" SH and OBL for culpability in 911, where do you start? You start with establishing a relationship between them. Did they know one another? Did they have reason to work together? Is there any evidence that shows that they were interested in working together toward this goal?

(1) Vaguely; (2) not really; (3) no.
You need not respond to me further re this. You're intentionally avoiding the facts as they were presented in the 911 Commission Report. Pretending it's not there, doesn't make it go away.

Lash wrote:

The defense would try to find an alibi for any alleged meetings--say they never contacted one another...they were not interested in the same goal....if they were faced with evidence of meetings, it would look very bad for their clients, but of course, they could then defend them as you are--and say just because there is evidence of several meetings and they are highly motivated to work together and there are clear signs that OBL was calling off his Al Ansar goons for SH, and SH had a Terrorist Med going on...well. That's not proof.

Yeah. OJ got off too.

Well done, Lash, you've made it seem like I defend terrorists. Musta' taken that right out of the Republican campaign strategy guide.
It's what you're doing. You're taking all the evidence compiled by the CIA and completely disregarding it.

Lash wrote:

IMO, neither side has enough evidence to mount a convincing case, so the decision has to made on a preponderance of the evidence.

Not when the decision to go to war rests on the verdict. Then, in my humble opinion, you need far more than a preponderance of the evidence.
This is the only thing you've said that is legitimate, IMO.

Lash wrote:

If there had been no evidence of any meetings or good vibes between them, I wouldn't be having this conversation. I would have shut up about this a couple of years ago.

"Good vibes?" We went to war over "good vibes?" How can you take yourself seriously?
The "popular theory" advanced by the Democrats and other assorted liberals in and out of government, was that Bin Laden would NEVER deign to associate with SH--over religious purity issues. OBL's meetings and varied overtures blow that lame theory out of the water. Good vibes were a major issue--and squashed a major anti-war assumption.

Lash wrote:

But, there is more evidence that they DID work together than they DIDN'T.

Only for those who are willfully blind to the evidence.
I'm quoting the evidence. You are the one in denial.

Lash wrote:

You won't see me marching in full uniform, blaring that it is a slam dunk case. But, you also won't see me avoid confrontation when some yahoo starts insulting those who think there is credence to the belief SH and OBL possibly worked together. The 62% thinks SH, at least indirectly, assisted with 911. So do I. There is good reason to.

No, the poll said that 62% of Republicans thought that Saddam was personally involved in the 9-11 attacks, not "indirectly assisted" in them.
I don't have a dog in this sematic war--but you CAN be personally involved and also have that involvement be indirect. If they thought SH assisted in the planning of 911, I'd have to disagree with them.

Lash wrote:

Never said it was proven. I said it was possible and likely.

I never said you offered proof. I said your argument proves nothing.
It proves you aren't interested in the facts surrounding this issue.

Lash wrote:

You are unaware of the conclusions to both men's requests of the other. If you are holding out with the tapes of their conversations, please call the 911 Commission. They'd be quite interested.

I know that nothing came of the tentative contacts between the two.

I don't have a dog in this sematic war--but you CAN be personally involved and also have that involvement be indirect. If they thought SH assisted in the planning of 911, I'd have to disagree with them.

Sitting down with OBL and advising him of the 911 plan is direct assistance.

freedom4free wrote:

Lash wrote

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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."

No this quotation is not pulled from a conspiracy-minded website, but from the Congressional Record from July 27, 1992. They are the words of the late Congressman Henry Gonzalez of Texas.

We were also personally involved with Saddam right ?

To follow your line of logic then, because we had dealings at one time with SH, we should now not pay any attention to his aiding and abetting an organization sworn to destroy our country? Does that go for any country we ever had a relationship with? Once we've had a relationship, we can never defend ourselves against aggression? Doesn't make for a very safe foreign policy.

Drew Dad--

If I'm so misinformed, disprove what I've said. I know your type finds it infinitely easier to just insult--but why don't you try to actually prove a point. Any point. Disprove what I've said.

DrewDad wrote:

Lash wrote:

Learning from me would be an improvement to remaining ignorant, I think.

Having no desire to be determinedly misinformed, I think not.

Still waiting for an explanation of how one can reasonably equate "personally involved" with "indirectly involved."

Well, I see now how you can remain so blind to the facts. You don't understand basic definitions and word usage. Providing logistical assistance, financing and running interference for someone, while they amass an army, train fighters and devise the 911 scenario IS indirect assistance.

Sitting down with OBL and advising him of the 911 plan is direct assistance.

I am glad to teach you a basic understanding of language and DCspeak.

Lash wrote:

I don't have a dog in this sematic war--but you CAN be personally involved and also have that involvement be indirect. If they thought SH assisted in the planning of 911, I'd have to disagree with them.

It's quite remarkable, how fast you change your opinion:
17 minutes before writing the above you explained:

Lash wrote:

Sitting down with OBL and advising him of the 911 plan is direct assistance.