• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why do so many people believe in a Saddam/9-11 link?

G

Gaard

Diamond Member
Media Matters? Poll Shows More than 4 in 10 Still Link Saddam to 9/11

NEW YORK While the press gave extensive coverage Tuesday to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?s statement that he hasn't seen "any strong, hard evidence" to link Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who staged the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, it became ever more apparent that the media still have their work cut out for them on this issue.

Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington.

In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had personally planned them.

The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%.

The independent commission that investigated 9/11 concluded in June that there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." The panel also said "contacts" between al-Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

These people believe something that there's no evidence of. Why?
Click to expand...
 
It's because Bush used 9/11 to instigate a war against "terror". He says terror and people think of 9/11, but it's a broad enough catagory that he can put Saddam into it as well. Osama is "terror" and Saddam is "terror" and people link the two without Bush having to say anything.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Tis a good question since the Administration never said there was a link.
Click to expand...

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." -Bush Spet 9, 2002
Click to expand...

"In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'"
Click to expand...

Don't forget that Cheney is still mentioning "connections" all the time. I guess they are just good at misleading wothout getting caught in bold face lies. You must be proud.
 
It's not as though we have to go after one or the other. I liked Bush's answer in the debate, when he said, "because we have the capacity to go after both." We knew Osama was a sworn enemy of the US, and he carried out attacks against US interests. We ignored him, and he sucker punched us from behind.

We also knew that Saddam was a sworn enemy. To say he wouldn't support an attack against US interests would be unbelievably stupid. We also ignored him. Libs are saying we should have kept ignoring him. Why wait until he kills thousands of our people before we take action? We made an example of Iraq. "We won't be beaten again. If you don't comply by our rules, we'll rip your head off. Who's next?" I love Bush for taking out Saddam, regardless of 9/11 or WMDs. Those were distractors. There were other valid reasons to force a regime change. It didn't come without casualties on both sides, but that is a calculated risk taken in any war. The Iraqi people and the future of Iraq is better off for it.
 
Probably because the White House has been so willfully cryptic about it, but has repeatedly said Iraq had strong ties to al Qaeda, notwithstanding the fact that these ties have never been proven, and the 9/11 commission says they never existed.
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874
It's not as though we have to go after one or the other. I liked Bush's answer in the debate, when he said, "because we have the capacity to go after both." We knew Osama was a sworn enemy of the US, and he carried out attacks against US interests. We ignored him, and he sucker punched us from behind.

We also knew that Saddam was a sworn enemy. To say he wouldn't support an attack against US interests would be unbelievably stupid. We also ignored him. Libs are saying we should have kept ignoring him. Why wait until he kills thousands of our people before we take action? We made an example of Iraq. "We won't be beaten again. If you don't comply by our rules, we'll rip your head off. Who's next?" I love Bush for taking out Saddam, regardless of 9/11 or WMDs. Those were distractors. There were other valid reasons to force a regime change. It didn't come without casualties on both sides, but that is a calculated risk taken in any war. The Iraqi people and the future of Iraq is better off for it.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile that with the President specifically saying he doesn't care about bin Laden's whereabouts, and the fact he still hasn't been brought to justice? How about the fact that Afghanistan has become increasingly lawless in the aftermath of OEF, and that its opium exports at at their highest level in history?
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
...and the 9/11 commission says they never existed.
Click to expand...

If you're going to support your argument with lies, you can prove anything to be true.

New York (AP) - The world community has agreed that 2+2 now equals 5. For millions of years, we have incorrectly thought 2+2 = 4. Through many years of solving theorums, it has finally been proven that 2+ 2 in fact equals 5.
Click to expand...
 
Same response for why this election is so close: ignorance and fundamentalist religious wackos who don't listen to reason but only to rhetoric.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito

How do you reconcile that with the President specifically saying he doesn't care about bin Laden's whereabouts, and the fact he still hasn't been brought to justice? How about the fact that Afghanistan has become increasingly lawless in the aftermath of OEF, and that its opium exports at at their highest level in history?
Click to expand...

1) I don't believe the President said that. Or at least that was not the meaning behind his statement.
2) I believe it is extremely difficult to find 1 man in that large of an area. Not to mention the extraordinary terrain.
3) "Increasingly lawless" is not quantifiable. I'm sure it will continue to be lawless for many years, as will Iraq. But installing a new government and expelling the bad guys is the first step.
4) I don't know much about their opium exports.

You seem to attempt to "credify" your arguments with facts that the average person wouldn't know (levels of opium exports in Afghanistan since overthrowing the Taliban, versus levels of opium exports throughout history???). Good job.
 
Osama is bad, Saddam is bad, bad people are grouped into one category, Hell. There's your link. 😉

No I do not really know why many people still believe it. Thats my theory. Why do people still believe the King and Tupac are alive? (shrug)
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874

If you're going to support your argument with lies, you can prove anything to be true.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about. The Commission said there were no collaborative ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that Iraq was not tied to 9/11.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Same response for why this election is so close: ignorance and fundamentalist religious wackos who don't listen to reason but only to rhetoric.
Click to expand...

That's funny. I also wonder why Kerry is so close to Bush, and it baffles me. I assume it's ignorance and people who don't know much about the issues, but go along with what they hear on TV from the media and celebrities. The democratic party is the "hip" party, and it's not popular to look like a "religious whacko" and vote Republican. Liberals are just conformist sheep.
 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Topic Title: Why do so many people believe in a Saddam/9-11 link?
Click to expand...

Title really should be why do Neocons believe in a Saddam/9-11 link?

Answer is because they have been told so by their Fearless Liar.
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874

1) I don't believe the President said that. Or at least that was not the meaning behind his statement.
2) I believe it is extremely difficult to find 1 man in that large of an area. Not to mention the extraordinary terrain.
3) "Increasingly lawless" is not quantifiable. I'm sure it will continue to be lawless for many years, as will Iraq. But installing a new government and expelling the bad guys is the first step.
4) I don't know much about their opium exports.

You seem to attempt to "credify" your arguments with facts that the average person wouldn't know (levels of opium exports in Afghanistan since overthrowing the Taliban, versus levels of opium exports throughout history???). Good job.
Click to expand...

"Credify?"

... "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - GW Bush, 3/13/02
Click to expand...

As for what he meant, it seems to me his statement speaks for itself. You can certainly guess, as can I, but I don't see anything all that ambiguous about it.

Afghanistan's opium production is a widely-known news item - Sen Kerry mentioned it during the debate, in fact.

In 2003, Afghanistan produced 3600 tons of opium, as compared to just 185 in 2001, before OEF. I suggest you take a look at that article.

Hamid Karzai himself has said "Trafficking and production of heroin helps terrorism," and I tend to think he's right.

The only reason I mentioned it was to observe that our commitment to peace and freedom in Afghanistan was demonstrably limited, and once the gunsights fell on Iraq, we more or less stopped caring about Afghanistan altogether. We could, perhaps, help maintain law and order in Afghanistan, which would really have helped win the "hearts and minds," but the PNAC playbook dictated that Iraq was more important, whether or not it posed any meaningful threat to the US (and at this point it takes a truly fanciful argument to claim that it did).
 
Why do 80% of Americans believe the government is hiding evidence that we have been visited by intelligent life forms from other solar systems?

 
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Because the American populous is comprised mainly of retards with a 5 second attention span.
Click to expand...

...who are no match for the most effective propaganda machine in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top