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

[RetiredGySgt]

Reread my post numnuts, it clearly states what I meant. You don't like it? To damn bad. you don't get to pretend i said something else WHILE quoting what I actually said.

Need some help with your OWN quote?

To which you reply to Gunny's post 295:
"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"?

Are you really to stupid to even read what you posted and quoted? My response is clear as a bell. I stated that 70 percent did not believe this at the time the vote to authorize force occurred. You claim I am lying or mistaken. Prove it. Can't be to hard. provide a poll from the time period of the Vote IN 2002 that substantiates the claim. Stop trying to pretend I did not say what i said.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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"?


Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

 

[DeadCanDance]

BushCo. attempts to link Iraq, to the attacks of 9/11:

GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. ..."

DICK CHENEY, 2002: "Its been pretty well confirmed that Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague"

DICK CHENY, 2003: "By attacking iraq, we will be attacking the geographic base, if you will, of those who attacked us on 9/11"

GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "By removing saddam, we've removed an ally of Al Qaeda".

 

[jillian]

Reread my post numnuts, it clearly states what I meant. You don't like it? To damn bad. you don't get to pretend i said something else WHILE quoting what I actually said.

Need some help with your OWN quote?



Are you really to stupid to even read what you posted and quoted? My response is clear as a bell. I stated that 70 percent did not believe this at the time the vote to authorize force occurred. You claim I am lying or mistaken. Prove it. Can't be to hard. provide a poll from the time period of the Vote IN 2002 that substantiates the claim. Stop trying to pretend I did not say what i said.

Maybe you should try to actually read what he said and respond to that instead of trying to change the convo when you've been proven wrong? You still haven't shown where IN HIS POST, he said a thing about the timeframe for the 70%.

 

[Alpha1]

BushCo. attempts to link Iraq, to the attacks of 9/11:

And what we see here is what the CIA and Tenet were testifying to at the Senate Intell. Committee....under oath....in 2002-2003
----------------------------------------------

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 the war...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......(20/20 hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking)

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."

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


So....were Cheney and Bush just saying what they had been led to believe by the CIA......

 

[Alpha1]

AND...both Cheney and Bush are ON THE RECORD saying that Saddam had no part in 9/11....there IS NO PROOF...
Cheney in 2001 and Bush in 2003....

 

[Dr Grump]

Reread my post numnuts, it clearly states what I meant. You don't like it? To damn bad. you don't get to pretend i said something else WHILE quoting what I actually said.

Need some help with your OWN quote?

Are you really to stupid to even read what you posted and quoted? My response is clear as a bell. I stated that 70 percent did not believe this at the time the vote to authorize force occurred. You claim I am lying or mistaken. Prove it. Can't be to hard. provide a poll from the time period of the Vote IN 2002 that substantiates the claim. Stop trying to pretend I did not say what i said.

It's not a case of whether I like or dislike what you said, your post changed the fucking goalposts by bringing in a time frame. I wasn't pretending Jack Shit, turdface, it is all there in black and white for all to see. Even a dyslexic amoeba can see that. My post that you responded to via Gunny did NOT mention a time frame. YOU brought that into the conversation. I have even REPOSTED it for you and ALL To see. Go to MY original quote and see where there is a time frame mentioned? Hint: there isn't. Gunny and I were not discussing the 70% figure with regard to the vote to use force. You were trying to validate your point by bringing that up. YOU brought that particular nugget into the convo. What is wrong with your reading comprehension?

I have even given you the benefit of the doubt in that you can't read or comprehend for shit and asked you to prove the 50% figure (which is COMPLETELY unrelated to my point)...still waiting..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's not a case of whether I like or dislike what you said, your post changed the fucking goalposts by bringing in a time frame. I wasn't pretending Jack Shit, turdface, it is all there in black and white for all to see. Even a dyslexic amoeba can see that. My post that you responded to via Gunny did NOT mention a time frame. YOU brought that into the conversation. I have even REPOSTED it for you and ALL To see. Go to MY original quote and see where there is a time frame mentioned? Hint: there isn't. Gunny and I were not discussing the 70% figure with regard to the vote to use force. You were trying to validate your point by bringing that up. YOU brought that particular nugget into the convo. What is wrong with your reading comprehension?

I have even given you the benefit of the doubt in that you can't read or comprehend for shit and asked you to prove the 50% figure (which is COMPLETELY unrelated to my point)...still waiting..

You can wait till the cow turds come in. I made a statement that you have tried to change, to bad for you. Once again Maineman stated that the vote to support force was made and supported by the democrats while they feared for their seats because of 70 percent of the people believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Simply not true, not with standing your and Jillians and Deadcandances insistances other wise. My statement is clear as a bell. You do not like it because it damages your claim.

Further the implication is that Bush somehow conned the people into believing what they did,when the facts are he and his admin stated for the record that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in 9/11. Claiming that Saddam wanted ties to AL Quaeda or helped them does not mean anything about 9/11. It is not misleading nor is it designed to make a non existant connection.

The fact his more people believed that after the invasion BECAUSE the left leaning press, aided and abetted by the Democrats said it over and over.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A little context since you seem to think this is all about you.

post 230 by Maineman

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.

post 272 by Maineman

TWO. First.... a majority of democrats elected to congress voted AGAINST the war...the rest caved into the brilliant posturing of the Rove Team that made the vote one about patriotism... I was upset with all of them.

THREE. No. They believed that they would lose their seats in congress if the public perceived them as being soft on Saddam..the guy who most of them felt was responsible for 9/11.

FOUR and FIVE. Asked and answered above.

SIX. Like I have said. Democrats voted to keep their seats. THey were aware of the 70% figure like everyone else. They felt that if they voted against the war, that their constituents would consider that they had voted against a war designed to get the guy who planned 9/11. They caved. I was and remain furious with all who did.


SEVEN. The intelligence was far from "clear". It was loaded with caveats and qualifiers. There was certainly plenty of indications that Saddam might have been involved with weapons of mass destruction... but there was ZERO intell that he was involved with 9/11....yet 70% of America believed he had been...which provided the political leverage to convince job security conscious congressmen and women to vote to give Bush the authority to use force as a last resort rather than risk the wrath of their constituencies.

Your post comes long after these and just happen to be when I had finally realized the information was incorrect. I was responding to GunnyL to tell him 70 percent did NOT believe the information at the time of the vote as claimed by MAINEMAN.

But of course you and Jillian and Dead never saw these posts right?

 

[eots]

So is the mission complete or not?

 

[Dr Grump]

You can wait till the cow turds come in. I made a statement that you have tried to change, to bad for you. Once again Maineman stated that the vote to support force was made and supported by the democrats while they feared for their seats because of 70 percent of the people believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Simply not true, not with standing your and Jillians and Deadcandances insistances other wise. My statement is clear as a bell. You do not like it because it damages your claim.

Further the implication is that Bush somehow conned the people into believing what they did,when the facts are he and his admin stated for the record that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in 9/11. Claiming that Saddam wanted ties to AL Quaeda or helped them does not mean anything about 9/11. It is not misleading nor is it designed to make a non existant connection.

The fact his more people believed that after the invasion BECAUSE the left leaning press, aided and abetted by the Democrats said it over and over.

Bush couldn't con his way out of a wet paper bag. I have always said, and honestly believe he is nothing but a puppet....

As you are right, as I have already stated, I did not read the exchange between yourself and Maineman..

 

[Psychoblues]

No. I think "yior" the kook here, rsr.

No yiou are pushing a kook left conspiracy theory that has long ago been proven to be a lie

What about the left wing conspiracy? Your accusation as has many others long been proven lies, innuendo and otherwise political bullshit.

Links to disprove my observation will be greatly appreciated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You are absolutely correct.

But the liberal left isn't interested in what was actually said, they're only interested in what they can make people believe was said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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????

Are you STILL trying to sell this horseshi'ite?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you STILL trying to sell this horseshi'ite?

Notice he can not respond to the claim he made that the vote to authorize force was made by Democrats fearful for their seats, since his 70 percent is a year later and the vote the number was no where near 70 percent.

Also recall that he dismisses that democrats would ever be swayed by temporary poll numbers, then claims they were forced by polls to vote for a war they did not want.

He can not explain how it is that Clinton in 2002 was saying EXACTLY what Bush was saying. He has not responded to the opinion I provided that his 70 percent a year later was the result of the Press and the Dems constantly making the claim that Bush and Company said it. Par for the course.

 

[M14 Shooter]

BushCo. attempts to link Iraq, to the attacks of 9/11:

These are statements linking Saddam and AQ, not Saddam and 9/11.

 

[maineman]

Are you STILL trying to sell this horseshi'ite?

you really can stop practicing your "annoying irrelevant twit" routine. You have it down pat!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

These are statements linking Saddam and AQ, not Saddam and 9/11.

Totally lost on our intellectual superiors.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Notice he can not respond to the claim he made that the vote to authorize force was made by Democrats fearful for their seats, since his 70 percent is a year later and the vote the number was no where near 70 percent.

His entire argument is based on correlation, not causation, and ignores the fact that the Administration stated clearly that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 -- a fact HE admits to.

MM is simply a useful idiot, helping his masters propogate The Big Lie.
Its very sad.

 

[maineman]

Notice he can not respond to the claim he made that the vote to authorize force was made by Democrats fearful for their seats, since his 70 percent is a year later and the vote the number was no where near 70 percent.

the fact that the poll indicating 70% belief in a lie happened after the vote does not change the fact that. at the time of the vote, Rove&Co. had done a masterful job of framing the debate as being about patriotism. It had been framed such that a vote against the use of force in Iraq was viewed as tantamount to a vote for al qaeda.

Also recall that he dismisses that democrats would ever be swayed by temporary poll numbers, then claims they were forced by polls to vote for a war they did not want.
I don't think I have ever suggested that ANY politician was immune to the power of poll numbers. And please recall, only a minority of congressional democrats succumbed to the pressure from those polls.

He can not explain how it is that Clinton in 2002 was saying EXACTLY what Bush was saying. He has not responded to the opinion I provided that his 70 percent a year later was the result of the Press and the Dems constantly making the claim that Bush and Company said it. Par for the course.

Bill Clinton never sent 150K ground troops into battle to invade, conquer, and occupy a sovereign nation, nor did he ever advocate doing so. Hillary was one of the ones who was cowered by polls... and that is the single biggest reason why I am not supporting her run for my party's nomination.

And your "opinion" that the 70% was as a result of the press is just that - an opinion...and what do you think the press was reporting on that allowed 70% to be deceived? Do you think they were making up the stories or were they reporting on the speeches made by administration talking heads?