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

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

You're welcome. Don't worry about apologizing for that odd, inexplicable misinterpretation of the very basic points in my post. I understand completely.
But since I totally agre with kicky [and think that you might believe, Jonah did literally live in the belly of a whale as well], I'll just leave it.
The anti-Chrisian bigotry knows no bounds here anymore. So, you're saying "even though I was completely wrong about what I said, you're a Christian, so I don't care." Non-Christians no longer have any standard of personal responsibility or veracity?
That sucks.

Kicky,

The problem you all seem to be afflicted with is this:

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I am not actually convinced of anything re this issue.

And, every time someone here acts as though they are convinced that a collusion between OBL and SH was impossible--and they belch forth with insults, attempting to belittle those who do think SH was involved directly or indirectly, I will challenge them to give evidence. And, when they can't, I'll point that out.

dlowan wrote:

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....

whatever is left of them, indeed.

Last night Synonymph and Mr. Syn and I were talking about this. It's obvious, even without looking at poll results, that the president's approval ratings are slipping in all sectors. Even some of the staunchest conservatives where I work have turned against the Bush administration. Others are still loyal to the GOP as a concept, but hate Bush and the mess he's making of everything he's involved in.

George Bush is the reverse King Midas: everything he touches turns to ****.

dlowan wrote:

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.

I assumed that the Bunny knew more than me... Silly Wabbit.

Just the facts.
OE, it's hard for me to believe you aren't aware of these infractions--but moreso, the subterfuge that took place during the last round of inspections--the UNMOVIC inspectors were bugged, so SH knew where they were going to inspect on any given day--they were held outside of some facilities, while trucks were loaded with materials in the back of the facilities and driven off--the Iraqi scientists were heavily "mindered" during interviews and reportedly threatened against speaking honestly--one Iraqi scientist screaming for help, was dragged away from a UN convoy by Iraqi "police" and never seen alive again...

Surely, you know these things.

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.

It's what you're doing. You're taking all the evidence compiled by the CIA and completely disregarding it.

This is the only thing you've said that is legitimate, IMO.

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.

I'm quoting the evidence. You are the one in denial.

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 proves you aren't interested in the facts surrounding this issue.

You certainly DO NOT know that.

dlowan wrote:

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....

whatever is left of them, indeed.

Last night Synonymph and Mr. Syn and I were talking about this. It's obvious, even without looking at poll results, that the president's approval ratings are slipping in all sectors. Even some of the staunchest conservatives where I work have turned against the Bush administration. Others are still loyal to the GOP as a concept, but hate Bush and the mess he's making of everything he's involved in.

George Bush is the reverse King Midas: everything he touches turns to ****.

Lash wrote:

Just the facts.
OE, it's hard for me to believe you aren't aware of these infractions--but moreso, the subterfuge that took place during the last round of inspections--the UNMOVIC inspectors were bugged, so SH knew where they were going to inspect on any given day--they were held outside of some facilities, while trucks were loaded with materials in the back of the facilities and driven off--the Iraqi scientists were heavily "mindered" during interviews and reportedly threatened against speaking honestly--one Iraqi scientist screaming for help, was dragged away from a UN convoy by Iraqi "police" and never seen alive again...

Surely, you know these things.

Lash, it would be weird if you would get something about the UNMOVIC inspections from the link you provided. Maybe you can point out where the relevant information is to be found on the website you linked to?

Lash wrote:

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.

As the first person in this thread who actually quoted from and linked to the commission report, I can only say that I find your attempt at "revisionist history" as baffling as the precipitous decline in your GPA.
Point to a comment I made that is incorrect. And prove it.

Lash wrote:

This is the only thing you've said that is legitimate, IMO.

Then you disagree with your previous statement that a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient.
Go back and read again. I was using a courtroom case to illustrate how honest people would go about determining whether or not SH and OBL were in league. In court, as I understand it, in the absence of hard evidence, the case would have to be decided on a preponderance of the evidence. I do stop short of saying something of this gravity should be decided on such evidence.

Lash wrote:

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.

If "good vibes" were a major issue to anyone, at any time, then Brian Wilson should have been chosen as secretary of state.
Try again.

Lash wrote:

I'm quoting the evidence. You are the one in denial.

I quoted the evidence first. What does that make you?
Second.

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.

What sort of "personal-but-indirect" involvement did Saddam Hussein have with regard to 9-11?
Funding the general group, running interference with other world leaders, allowing them training grounds, ... Did Saddam personally strategize with Palestinian suicide bombers? But, he paid their families--giving a high inscentive for Palestinians to blow themselves up. He personally and indirectly had a part in the murder of Israelis. Get it, now?

Lash wrote:

It proves you aren't interested in the facts surrounding this issue.

I've seen very few facts coming from you -- strange, implausible conjectures perhaps, but few facts.
I quoted the 911 Report.

Lash wrote:

You certainly DO NOT know that.

I know as much as Dubya: We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks.
At least he tells the truth about it. He has no evidence. You say it's not possible. He is right. I am right. You are wrong. You have made claims that aren't accurate.

The link was just a website from the United States Embassy in Latvia-Latvia!-outlining the things Saddam was supposed to do to satisfy the US.

It said nothing of the things you said it did.

You're spacing out on us.

Funding the general group, running interference with other world leaders, allowing them training grounds, ... Did Saddam personally strategize with Palestinian suicide bombers? But, he paid their families--giving a high inscentive for Palestinians to blow themselves up. He personally and indirectly had a part in the murder of Israelis. Get it, now?