1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[RetiredGySgt]

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.


YouTube - Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?
Content of this nature is not necessarily prohibited on ...
1 min 2 sec -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k




YouTube - Bush has to admit to Iraq connection with 9/11
Blithering fool makes up jibber-jabber on the spot;
2 min 5 sec -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-c8Bf8LWWk

Except no where in the story does he say what the opening paragraph claims. Let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y , myabe then you will get it.

Claiming Saddam Hussein had or was trying to make connections with Al Quaeda does not mean that someone said he was involved in 9/11. Provide a QUOTE of Cheney actually saying Saddam Hussein was or may have been involved in 9/11. This article is a nice hit piece but it does not support what it claims.

 

[eots]

Except no where in the story does he say what the opening paragraph claims. Let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y , myabe then you will get it.

Claiming Saddam Hussein had or was trying to make connections with Al Quaeda does not mean that someone said he was involved in 9/11. Provide a QUOTE of Cheney actually saying Saddam Hussein was or may have been involved in 9/11. This article is a nice hit piece but it does not support what it claims.

YouTube - Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?
Content of this nature is not necessarily prohibited on ...
1 min 2 sec -
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k[/ame]

ya he does 911 , Iraq etc all in the same short sentence it is intentionally a little murky..but the very strong implication is clearly made..as was my point about withholding and distorting wmd Intel to congress

 

[Alpha1]

YouTube - Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?
Content of this nature is not necessarily prohibited on ...
1 min 2 sec -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k

ya he does 911 , Iraq etc all in the same short sentence it is intentionally a little murky..but the very strong implication is clearly made..as was my point about withholding and distorting wmd Intel to congress

Whats murky? The VP said there was some evidence of contacts between Iraqi representatives and AQ.....according to the CIA, there was that belief...

----------------------------------------------

From the Senate Intelligence Report...Page 70

(U) In January, 2003, the CIA summarized the intelligence reporting contacts with al-Qa'ida:

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present. several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.
-------------------------------------------
Here we see what the CIA reported PRIOR to 9/11...they reported at least eight DIRECT meetings between Iraqi representatives and TOP al-Qa'ida operatives,....do they not?....throughout the Clinton admin. to the present(2003)
1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U) The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.

This is the SSCI conclusion....admitting to the "reasonable assessment" of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida....though they conclude that these meetings do not add us to an "established FORMAL relationship....


******************************************


The President said in no uncertain terms that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11......a different subject altogether...

Nothing murky at all....unless your brain is a mite murky to start with....

You're shown the facts time after time, and like MM can't seem to grasp what the truth is.....you need less koolade, to let your mind clear....

 

[eots]

Whats murky? The VP said there was some evidence of contacts between Iraqi representatives and AQ.....according to the CIA, there was that belief...

----------------------------------------------

From the Senate Intelligence Report...Page 70

(U) In January, 2003, the CIA summarized the intelligence reporting contacts with al-Qa'ida:

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present. several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.
-------------------------------------------
Here we see what the CIA reported PRIOR to 9/11...they reported at least eight DIRECT meetings between Iraqi representatives and TOP al-Qa'ida operatives,....do they not?....throughout the Clinton admin. to the present(2003)
1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U) The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.

This is the SSCI conclusion....admitting to the "reasonable assessment" of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida....though they conclude that these meetings do not add us to an "established FORMAL relationship....


******************************************


The President said in no uncertain terms that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11......a different subject altogether...

Nothing murky at all....unless your brain is a mite murky to start with....

You're shown the facts time after time, and like MM can't seem to grasp what the truth is.....you need less koolade, to let your mind clear....

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.


The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.



9/11 panel sees no Iraq-al-Qaida link - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ - 70k

BBC NEWS | UK | Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda linkThere are no current links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda network, ... Denying any connection with al-Qaeda, he said: "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm - 57k - Cached - Similar pages



CNN.com - Selling an Iraq-al Qaeda connection - Mar. 11, 2003Bottom line: U.S. officials claim there is evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection -- but there is no "smoking gun." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman ...
www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/ - 40k -

 

[Gunny]

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.


The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.



9/11 panel sees no Iraq-al-Qaida link - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ - 70k

BBC NEWS | UK | Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda linkThere are no current links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda network, ... Denying any connection with al-Qaeda, he said: "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm - 57k - Cached - Similar pages



CNN.com - Selling an Iraq-al Qaeda connection - Mar. 11, 2003Bottom line: U.S. officials claim there is evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection -- but there is no "smoking gun." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman ...
www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/ - 40k -

Sheer genius. Why would anyone think a secular ruthless dictator would be in cahoots with wahabbi fanatics?

 

[Alpha1]

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.


The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.



9/11 panel sees no Iraq-al-Qaida link - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ - 70k

BBC NEWS | UK | Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda linkThere are no current links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda network, ... Denying any connection with al-Qaeda, he said: "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm - 57k - Cached - Similar pages



CNN.com - Selling an Iraq-al Qaeda connection - Mar. 11, 2003Bottom line: U.S. officials claim there is evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection -- but there is no "smoking gun." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman ...
www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/ - 40k -

So whats your point.....you're talking about what was said in Sept. of 2003 and what was eventually found out later, June of 2004.....and as noted in you post, 2007...four years later....
What the CIA reported in 2003 was later found out to be incorrect, so what...

from you own link in 3/2003....

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, CIA Director George Tenet added, "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."

The CIA was still making claims that later was found out there was no real proof for.....this has absolutly nothing to do with what was believed to be the facts in September of 2003.....does the time line confuse you.....?

 

[maineman]

Bull. It is a fact that 70% of whoever got polled was ignorant enough to beleive that crap, and they had to be libs. I've not heard ANY conservatives say such a thing. The administration came out and made a point of stating that there was no evidence to support Saddam being involved in 9/11.

This is just another myth the left insists on attempting to perpetuate regardless the facts. Again, I haven't seen one person on this board making such a claim except liberals.

Y'all must be easily misled.

yeah. right. the 70% of the people who believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 were all liberals....most of whom were against the war in Iraq...and the 30% who disbelieved it were all conservatives who nonetheless were FOR the way in Iraq. What color is the sky in your world?

That doesn't make any sense. And seriously.... after they realized that they had come to believe something as stupid as that, why would any proud conservative ever admit to it after it had been proven to be bullshit?

"70%??? Hell! I sure wasn't one of them!"

 

[Diuretic]

Sheer genius. Why would anyone think a secular ruthless dictator would be in cahoots with wahabbi fanatics?

It doesn't make sense that he would be. Saddam knew religious fanaticism was a potential problem for his secular state, he would hardly want them there.

 

[Alpha1]

yeah. right. the 70% of the people who believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 were all liberals....most of whom were against the war in Iraq...and the 30% who disbelieved it were all conservatives who nonetheless were FOR the way in Iraq. What color is the sky in your world?

That doesn't make any sense. And seriously.... after they realized that they had come to believe something as stupid as that, why would any proud conservative ever admit to it after it had been proven to be bullshit?

"70%??? Hell! I sure wasn't one of them!"

http://tinyurl.com/39eo2

Camp David, Maryland
September 16, 2001

The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert


MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?(9/11)

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.


5 days after the WTC attack.....

 

[eots]

It doesn't make sense that he would be. Saddam knew religious fanaticism was a potential problem for his secular state, he would hardly want them there.

stop being logical...there all islamofascist, they all live over there what more is there to know..there are two connections right there

 

[maineman]

http://tinyurl.com/39eo2

Camp David, Maryland
September 16, 2001

The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert


MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?(9/11)

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.


5 days after the WTC attack.....

what does this link have to do with what I posted?

Do YOU have any ideas as to how 70% of America came to believe that Saddam - in 2003, not 9/16/01 - was responsible for 9/11????

 

[Nevadamedic]

what does this link have to do with what I posted?

Do YOU have any ideas as to how 70% of America came to believe that Saddam - in 2003, not 9/16/01 - was responsible for 9/11????

Your being rather rabid latley.......................

 

[Alpha1]

what does this link have to do with what I posted?

Do YOU have any ideas as to how 70% of America came to believe that Saddam - in 2003, not 9/16/01 - was responsible for 9/11????

11-08-2007, 01:25 PM
maineman's Avatar
maineman maineman is online now
Yellowdog Democrat


The fact remains: in early 2003, 70% of America believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11. Yet no one can explain how they all came to that conclusion. No one is willing to admit that maybe the Bushies constant claims of connections between Saddam and AQ might have had something to do with it.
__________________

You seem obsessed that 70% believe what they believe....
so for the record....both Bush and Cheney are on the record saying that there was no proof, and is no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11
Cheney, 5 days after the WTC attacks....
---------------
and for clarity...saying there was a connection between Saddam and AQ is nowhere even close to saying they were partners in 9/11.....

It was the Democrats that tryed to make that mis-characterization over and over and over, with the co-operation of the media, that led to many actually believing the bullshit.....that, IMHO, is how 70% came to that erroneous conclusion....and surprisingly, over 40% still believe it, even after both Bush and Cheney said there is no proof of a Saddam/9.11 connection....

Its STILL being perpetuated by the left...and still has legs...

 

[Diuretic]

stop being logical...there all islamofascist, they all live over there what more is there to know..there are two connections right there

I'm confused. I thought Islam o' Fascist was a naturalised Irishman born in the Middle East

 

[eots]

I'm confused. I thought Islam o' Fascist was a naturalised Irishman born in the Middle East

your absolutely correct a islamofascist could very well be a naturalized Irishmen born in the middle east..but your confusion is understandable as fox news just recently invented the word to describe a vague shadowy enemy , kind of like a terrorist but not really...its kind of a way to describe anyone of the Muslim faith that opposes the invasion of Iraq or Iran and does not greet us as the great liberators. it also comes in useful for labeling anyone who opposes the regime as, aiding the islamofascist.... and its catchy and fun to say !

 

[Dr Grump]

Perhaps english is not your first language? Let me provide the date for your article...



Now lets see what I said....

And where in MY original post did I mention dates?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And where in MY original post did I mention dates?

Lets see, you claimed I was wrong and as proof provided an article a year later. Yup that is relevant indeed.

 

[Dr Grump]

Lets see, you claimed I was wrong and as proof provided an article a year later. Yup that is relevant indeed.

Er, let's see...I mentioned a 70% figure. No date, no nothing. You brought up the "votes to allow force" issue, not I. I wasn't talking at that time, therefore you point is irrelevent, unless you want make a DIFFERENT point. If I had started MY point by saying "at the time of votes to allow force 70 percent of Yanks believed Sadman was involved with 9-11", your point would be on the money. I didn't. My sole point was 70% of Yanks believed that Sadman was responsible for 9-11. I provided a link to prove my point. I never stated whether it was a year later, two years later, or three years later. Not only that, you claimed the figure might be made up, which I proved incorrect (if we were using the limited sphere or YOUR post, again you may be correct, but as I made the ORIGINAL post without any time limits as to when the figure was introduced, you have moved the goalposts. Again, that is fine, but stop pretrending you have made a valid point. Moving goalposts does not a valid point make - debating 101)...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Er, let's see...I mentioned a 70% figure. No date, no nothing. You brought up the "votes to allow force" issue, not I. I wasn't talking at that time, therefore you point is irrelevent, unless you want make a DIFFERENT point. If I had started MY point by saying "at the time of votes to allow force 70 percent of Yanks believed Sadman was involved with 9-11", your point would be on the money. I didn't. My sole point was 70% of Yanks believed that Sadman was responsible for 9-11. I provided a link to prove my point. I never stated whether it was a year later, two years later, or three years later. Not only that, you claimed the figure might be made up, which I proved incorrect (if we were using the limited sphere or YOUR post, again you may be correct, but as I made the ORIGINAL post without any time limits as to when the figure was introduced, you have moved the goalposts. Again, that is fine, but stop pretrending you have made a valid point. Moving goalposts does not a valid point make - debating 101)...

Absolute horse shit. YOU quoted MY statement and then said I was wrong. Your the one that is wrong. You do not get to claim MY explanation is some how wrong by changing what was said. Shall I quote MY statement and then yours?

Maineman has made the claim that the Democrats in congress voted for the war because 70 percent of the people believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. Simply not true. At the time of the vote to authorize force there was no 70 percent believing any such thing. Further he has claimed as have you that Bush caused the people to believe that, when in fact they probably believed it because the press and the left kept claiming thats what Bush said when he did not.

 

[Dr Grump]

Absolute horse shit. YOU quoted MY statement and then said I was wrong. Your the one that is wrong. You do not get to claim MY explanation is some how wrong by changing what was said. Shall I quote MY statement and then yours?

Maineman has made the claim that the Democrats in congress voted for the war because 70 percent of the people believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. Simply not true. At the time of the vote to authorize force there was no 70 percent believing any such thing. Further he has claimed as have you that Bush caused the people to believe that, when in fact they probably believed it because the press and the left kept claiming thats what Bush said when he did not.

Absolute total bollocks. Your statement was made as a result of MY statement, which came first! Here it is in B&W, just so you can follow:

My statement, post 285:
<i>"No conspiracy. It is a fact that 70&#37; of Yanks believed, at one stage, Sadman had something to do with 9-11. Why? If you can't answer, or don't have an opinion, that is fine. But don't come spouting on THIS board about FACTS every other post, when one is pointed out, you dismiss it out of hand or refuse to give an opinion on it. "</i>

Nowhere is a date mentioned.

Then Gunny answers my post 294:
<i>"Bull. It is a fact that 70% of whoever got polled was ignorant enough to beleive that crap, and they had to be libs. I've not heard ANY conservatives say such a thing. The administration came out and made a point of stating that there was no evidence to support Saddam being involved in 9/11."</i>

To which you reply to Gunny's post 295:
<i>"Further from my recent research I discovered the 70 percent figure may in fact be made up. The number was closer to just over 50 percent at the time of the votes to allow force"</i>?

Care to spin anymore? Where in my original post did I mention a date? You were DIRECTLY responding to Gunny's post who was DIRECTLY responding to mine. I have not read any interaction between yourself and Maineman, and I hate to break it to you Sparky, but I ain't Maineman. I quoted YOUR statement as a direct result of you quoting Gunny, who was quoting me. If you cannot follow a simple quotes in a thread then maybe you better head back to debate school. You clearly state that you thought the 70% figure was made up, then you qualify it. So what about MY 70% figure mentioned FIRST, was that made up, too, or is my link - which not only states the number, but give the date of the poll and the margin of error - made up too?

Let's also address your 50% point, which you seem to have trouble understanding is DIFFERENT from mine, can you provide a link to support your POV?