33% of US population considered retarded

[Parkbandit]

"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."

"The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html?source=mypi

[TheEschaton]

You are an asshat.

That 16% are ridiculous, but I would have no trouble believing the gov't fiddled while NY burned, on purpose.

-TheE-

[Artha]

I guess it just shows that if you repeat a big enough lie often enough, even normally reasonable people start to believe it.

:)

[CrystalTears]

Well consider TheE part of that 33% (who actually believe that, not the retarded part).

I'm not one to believe into that much conspiracy anyway. That just sounds like people have been watching the conspiracy movies and believing them and not thinking for themselves.

[TheEschaton]

I guess it just shows that if you repeat a big enough lie often enough, even normally reasonable people start to believe it.

Are you being sly and witty in reference to...oh, say, "WMDs in Iraq"? If so, touche. If not...I mock you.

-TheE-

[Artha]

Are you being sly and witty in reference to...oh, say, "WMDs in Iraq"?
That's how I roll.

[DeV]

The point at which I stopped reading: "The national survey of 1,010 adults"

[CrystalTears]

This movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29) has been going around a lot lately, even at my job where I ended up with a copy to view. My husband and I didn't believe most of it, even though they had some valid reasons to feel that way. They never showed any proof, just random quotes from faceless/nameless people.

The Twin Towers were not built the same as any other skyscraper. No other tower had the same structure, and was not built to withstand a hit such as a plane. We saw a documentary not too long ago with the engineers of those buildings explaining exactly how those buildings could fall from a plane hit. I believe them more than the independant film.

[crazymage]

Yeah that poll is pretty lame....

[Hulkein]

People are very stupid. People at my work always talk about Loose Change, then when I sent them the Popular Science article debunking most of it, they just act like they never read it.

People like to believe in conspiracy's, I guess.

[Landrion]

Love the wording, participated or took no action to stop. I participated or took no action to stop the big bang, the invention of the wheel and the cooking of my dinner last night.

[Valthissa]

PB,

pick up a cpy of 'Why People Believe Weird Things' by Shermer.

Skip the holocaust denial junk (I found that part unreadable).

It won't make you feel any better about the 33% but it's a pretty good book on the subject of odd beliefs.

C/Valth

[Kefka]

Can't say I blame people for thinking this way. If you consider building 7, you know something smells. The official story has so many holes in it, one can call it it's own conspiracy theory.

[Back]

The biggest problem I have with this theory is that it is just too unimaginably horrific to believe the government would do something like that.

[Sean of the Thread]

WMD's that were in Iraq aside.. (fool if you believe otherwise) I know that poll is fucked up because there are more than 33% of the population that are libbys.

[Hulkein]

The biggest problem I have with this theory is that it is just too unimaginably horrific to believe the government would do something like that.

I feel a little of that, too. If I firmly believed the government did that I don't know what I would do.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't think that the Bush administration took much action at all prior to 9/11, so I would doubt very strongly that they played a hand in it deliberately. The poll should have been conducted in two studies to make the numbers more reliable.

Inaction, however, is still action from where I last viewed matters.
There's much more if you care to read it here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=550



Early 2001: Bush Staffers Less Concerned with Terrorism Donald Kerrick. [Source: White House]
Clinton and Bush staff overlap for several months while new Bush appointees are appointed and confirmed. Clinton holdovers seem more concerned about al-Qaeda than the new Bush staffers. For instance, according to a colleague, Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, had become “totally preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack. [Newsweek, 5/27/2002] Brian Sheridan, Clinton’s outgoing Deputy Defense Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, is astonished when his offers during the transition to bring the new military leadership up to speed on terrorism are brushed aside. “I offered to brief anyone, any time on any topic. Never took it up.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/2004] Army Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, Deputy National Security Adviser and manager of Clinton’s NSC (National Security Council) staff, still remains at the NSC nearly four months after Bush takes office. He later notes that while Clinton’s advisers met “nearly weekly” on terrorism by the end of his term, he does not detect the same kind of focus with the new Bush advisers: “That’s not being derogatory. It’s just a fact. I didn’t detect any activity but what [Clinton holdover Richard] Clarke and the CSG [Counterterrorism and Security Group] were doing.” [Washington Post, 1/20/2002] Kerrick submits a memo to the new people at the NSC, warning, “We are going to be struck again.” He says, “They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn’t see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as.” Kerrick adds, “They were gambling nothing would happen.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/2004] Bush’s first Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Henry Shelton, later says terrorism was relegated “to the back burner” until 9/11. [Washington Post, 10/2/2002]

Early 2001: Taliban Disinformation Project Is Cancelled
The heads of the US military, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have become frustrated by the lack of CIA disinformation operations to create dissent among the Taliban, and at the very end of the Clinton administration, they begin to develop a Taliban disinformation project of their own, which is to go into effect in 2001. When they are briefed, the Defense Department’s new leaders kill the project. According to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Henry Shelton, “[Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld and Deputy [Defense] Secretary Paul Wolfowitz were against the Joint Staff having the lead on this.” They consider this a distraction from their core military missions. As far as Rumsfeld is concerned, “This terrorism thing was out there, but it didn’t happen today, so maybe it belongs lower on the list ... so it gets defused over a long period of time.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/2004]

January-August 2001: Airlines Receive FAA Warnings, But Later Claim They Were Given No Real Hints of Possible Terrorist Attacks
The FAA gives 15 warnings to domestic airlines between January and August 2001, but about one general security warning a month had been common for a long time. [CNN, 5/17/2002] Even a government official later calls the content of these 15 warnings “standard fare.” [Miami Herald, 5/17/2002] As one newspaper later reports, “there were so many [warnings] that airline officials grew numb to them.” [St. Petersburg Times, 9/23/2002] In May 2002, in response to recent revelations about what was known before 9/11, the major airlines will hold a press conference claiming they were never warned of a specific hijacking threat, and were not told to tighten security. For instance, an American Airlines spokesman states that the airline “received no specific information from the US government advising the carrier of a potential terrorist hijacking in the United States in the months prior to September 11, 2001. American receives FAA security information bulletins periodically, but the bulletins were extremely general in nature and did not identify a specific threat or recommend any specific security enhancements.” [Miami Herald, 5/17/2002] Bush administration officials later state that the terror information they are receiving is so vague that tighter security does not seem required. [Associated Press, 5/18/2002] However, it seems that even these general warnings are never passed on to airline employees. Rosemary Dillard, a supervisor for American Airlines, states, “My job was supervision over all the flight attendants who flew out of National, Baltimore, or Dulles. In the summer of 2001, we had absolutely no warnings about any threats of hijackings or terrorism, from the airline or from the FAA.” [New York Observer, 6/17/2004] The content of these seemingly harmless warnings remain classified after 9/11. They are said to be exempted from public disclosure by a federal statute that covers “information that would be detrimental to the security of transportation if disclosed.” [New York Observer, 6/17/2004]

Early January 2001: Al-Qaeda Threat Highlighted for Powell
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke briefs Secretary of State Powell about the al-Qaeda threat. He urges decisive and quick action against al-Qaeda. Powell meets with the CSG (Counterterrorism and Security Group) containing senior counterterrorism officials from many agencies. He sees that all members of the group agree al-Qaeda is an important threat. For instance, Deputy Defense Secretary Brian Sheridan says to Powell, “Make al-Qaeda your number one priority.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 227-30]

January 2001: Hijackers Rent Post Office Box in Florida Months Before They Officially Arrive Hijackers Hamza Alghamdi and Mohand Alshehri rent a post office box in Delray Beach, Florida, according to the Washington Post. Yet FBI Director Mueller later claims they do not enter the country until May 28, 2001 (see April 23-June 29, 2001). [Washington Post, 9/30/2001; US Congress, 9/26/2002]



January 2001: Death of Operative Puts New FBI Focus on Boston Cell Bassam Kanj. [Source: FBI]
Bassam Kanj is killed in a battle in Lebanon. Kanj lived on and off in Boston for nearly 15 years, and was a friend of al-Qaeda operatives Nabil al-Marabh, Raed Hijazi, and Mohamad Kamal Elzahabi. All four of them fought together in Afghanistan in the late 1980s (see Late 1980s), then worked at the same Boston taxi company in the 1990s (see June 1995-Early 1999). In late 1998, Kanj left Boston for Lebanon where he apparently recruited a couple hundred people to take part in a rebellion to overthrow the Lebanese government. He is killed during a five day battle, along with 21 others. Two days after the battle, a Lebanese newspaper identifies him as an al-Qaeda operative who had received financial support from bin Laden. This leads to a renewed focus on him in the US. In February 2001, the Boston Globe will report, “The FBI is continuing to look at Kanj’s and Hijazi’s activities in the Boston area in hopes of learning more about their contacts inside bin Laden’s far-flung organization.” Michael Rolince, chief of international terrorism operations for the FBI, will tell the Globe that both men had a “higher station” than most in al-Qaeda, and will add, “We are still trying to sort out who played what role.” [Boston Globe, 2/5/2001] Presumably, this leads the FBI to take another look at Nabil al-Marabh, who had been roommates with both Hijazi and Kanj and is already wanted for a variety of al-Qaeda contacts. An individual matching al-Marabh’s description is even mentioned in a prominent New York Times story about al-Qaeda in January 2001. The article states, “In early 1997, Hijazi moved to Boston, where he had a friend from his years in Afghanistan.” [New York Times, 1/15/2001] Yet apparently there is no concerted effort to find al-Marabh, who will even be set free after being arrested trying to illegally enter the US (see June 27, 2001-July 11, 2001). And while the FBI learns about Elzahabi, he will be allowed to return from fighting as a sniper in Chechnya and apply for a license to transport hazardous materials (see Mid-August 2001).


Early 2001: Top Military Leaders Attend Briefings on Able Danger In January

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Henry Shelton is given a three hour briefing on Able Danger. Shelton supported the formation of Able Danger back in 1999 (see Fall 1999). The content of the briefing has never been reported. Then in March, during a briefing on another classified program called Door Hop Galley, Able Danger is again brought up. This briefing, given by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, is attended by Vice Adm. Thomas Wilson, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; Richard Schiefren, an attorney at DOD; and Stephen Cambone, Special Assistant to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. [Government Security News, 9/2005; Office of Congressman Curt Weldon, 9/17/2005 Sources: Curt Weldon] In mid-September 2005, Weldon will say, “I knew that the Clinton administration clearly knew about this. Now I know of at least two briefings in the Bush administration.” He calls these two briefings “very troubling.” He wants to know what became of the information presented in these briefings, suggesting it shouldn’t have been destroyed as part of the other Able Danger data purges. [Delaware County Daily Times, 9/16/2005; Office of Congressman Curt Weldon, 9/17/2005]

January-March 2001: Intelligence Unit Tracking Al-Qaeda is Closed Down; Change in Leadership Factors in Closure
A secret military intelligence unit called Able Danger, which is tasked with assembling information about al-Qaeda networks around the world, is shut down. Some accounts say the program is shut down in January, some say February, and some say March. [Norristown Times Herald, 6/19/2005; Times Herald (Norristown), 9/12/2005; US Congress. Senate. Committee on Judiciary, 9/21/2005] The unit has identified Mohamed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaeda cell operating in the United States (see January-February 2000). According to James D. Smith, a Pentagon contractor involved with the unit, the inspector general shuts down the operation “because of a claim that we were collecting information on US citizens,” and it is illegal for the military to do this. [WTOP Radio 103.5 (Washington), 9/1/2005] Others familiar with the unit later say it is closed down because it might have led to the exposure of another data mining project that was investigating US citizens allegedly illegally transferring sensitive US technology to the Chinese government. [WTOP Radio 103.5 (Washington), 9/1/2005] Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer also blames the change in leadership brought by the new Bush administration. “Once the four star [General Schoomaker] went away, it was pretty much like the world closing around us [Schoomaker retired in November 2000, but returned as Army Chief of Staff in 2003]. There was no political will to continue this at that point in time. Plus, my direct leadership: Colonel [Jerry] York and General [Bob] Harding had moved on as well. Therefore, I had a new chain of command above me. They were very risk adverse. This [Able Danger] operation, as with other operations which were very high risk / high gain, some of which are still ongoing—seemed to not be appreciated by the incoming leadership.” [Government Security News, 9/2005; American Forces Press Service, 6/17/2003]

January-March 2001: Wright Told to ‘Let Sleeping Dogs Lie’ Kathleen McChesney. [Source: FBI]
FBI agent Robert Wright is continuing to protest and fight the cancellation of the Vulgar Betrayal investigation (see August 2000). In January 2001, he claims that his supervisor tells him, “I think it’s just better to let sleeping dogs lie.” FBI agent John Vincent backs up the allegation. [ABC News, 12/19/2002] In March 2001, Wright meets with the Chicago special agent-in-charge, who appears to be Kathleen McChesney, given that Wright calls this person “she” and McChesney held that position since January 1999. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 12/2001; Federal News Service, 6/2/2003] He tells her that “the international terrorism unit of the FBI is a complete joke.” Within three weeks, the FBI opens another disciplinary investigation on Wright, charging that he had supplied classified information to an assistant US attorney. Wright is later cleared of the charges. In 2002, Wright will claim, “This was a pathetic attempt ... before the Sept. 11th attacks, to further silence me from going public about the FBI’s negligence and incompetence.” [New York Post, 7/14/2004; CNN, 6/19/2003] A lawyer speaking for Wright after 9/11 will blame Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Michael Chertoff for refusing to take Wright’s concerns seriously before 9/11. Chertoff will later be promoted to head the Department of Homeland Security. [Fox News, 5/30/2002]


January 3, 2001: Clarke Briefs Rice on al-Qaeda Threat; Keeps Job but Loses Power Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” for the Clinton administration, briefs National Security Adviser Rice and her deputy, Steve Hadley, about al-Qaeda. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002] Outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger makes an unusual appearance at the start of the meeting, saying to Rice, “I’m coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is.” He claims that he tells Rice during the transition between administrations, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” Clarke presents his plan to “roll back” al-Qaeda that he had given to the outgoing Clinton administration a couple of weeks earlier. [Time, 8/4/2002] He gets the impression that Rice has never heard the term al-Qaeda before. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 227-30; Guardian, 3/25/2004]

January 3, 2001: Clarke Demoted by Rice and Future 9/11 Commission Executive Director National Security Adviser Rice decides this day to retain Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” for the Clinton administration, and his staff. However, she downgrades his official position as National Coordinator for Counterterrorism. While he is still known as the counterterrorism “tsar,” he has less power and now reports to deputy secretaries instead of attending Cabinet-level meetings. He no longer is able to send memos directly to the president, or easily interact with Cabinet-level officials. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 227-30; Guardian, 3/25/2004] In 2004, Rice will reveal that the person she tasks with considering changes to Clarke and his staff is Philip Zelikow, the future Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow recuses himself from those parts of the 9/11 Commission’s investigation directly relating to his role in this and other matters. However, 9/11 victims’ relatives are not satisfied. For instance, one relative says, “Zelikow has conflicts. I’m not sure that his recusal is sufficient. His fingerprints are all over that decision [to demote Clarke].” [United Press International, 4/10/2004]

[Parkbandit]

You are an asshat.

That 16% are ridiculous, but I would have no trouble believing the gov't fiddled while NY burned, on purpose.

-TheE-

Now to find the other 32.77% of the other retards in the country. By the way, the question wasn't if the government did nothing as NY burned.. learn 2 read imo.. it said "or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East" Big difference.

I still think it's Haliburton behind the whole thing... or wait.. Bush's rich oil friends.

[StrayRogue]

You're forgetting the 50% who believe in creationism.

[Artha]

I really don't think 50% of Americans believe in creationism. Not even that many are protestants, of which a minority are creationists.

[StrayRogue]

...

And yet you believe 33% believe in the 911 conspiracy?

[Artha]

1,010 people doesn't make it a very solid poll, IMO.

[StrayRogue]

Neither does 31,980 people. It still doesn't stop people claiming percentages though, does it?

Welcome to sarcasm...

[Parkbandit]

The point of my original post was how fucking retarded some people are. Clearly, I would hope that 33% of any group of people actually believe this.. but there are some folks need to be pulled away from their moveon.org websites by the hair and shown the daylight.

[Warriorbird]

I bet 50% of Republicans believe in creationism.

:snickers:

Really!

I can even spell out the word of the opposite party rather than shortening it into some Halfling speak like Xyelin.

[Sean of the Thread]

Libbys aren't an opposite party.. ..they're barely a party at all.

[Kefka]

Unfortunately, coverups and no investigations tend to lead to such theories.

[Kefka]

Libbys aren't an opposite party.. ..they're barely a party at all.

Actually Libby's just one man. And he's trying to stay out of jail for the Plame case.

[Stanley Burrell]

Remember,

When the evil Zionists/United States/Reptile alien mudda'-fuckers are bent on taking over the world by murdering their own infrastructure, that they are always careful enough to ...will radical, unstable Arabic fundamentalists into perpetrating these heinous acts.

M'kay :mackey:

[Valthissa]

1,010 people doesn't make it a very solid poll, IMO.

that's an interesting sentence.

1010 is a sufficient quantity to generate the confidence interval selected by the organization conducting the poll. That much is pure, simple mathematics, derived from formulas that are centuries old.

From there, things become a lot less certain.

Given the confidence interval selected, is the claim meaningful?

Is the sample biased?

Were the questions asked sufficiently neutral so as to produce a statistically valid result?

<insert lots of questions concerning sampling frames, response bias, non-response, etc. here>

Probability and Statistics are mathematics, polling is a social science. It might be a good poll but we don't really have enough information to make that determination.

C/Valth (hot and bored three days in a row)

[Ilvane]

PB, you really should include yourself in that 33% whether you agree or not..seriously.

It's not about how people hate Bush, Cheney, Haliburton and the other cronies..it's about how they could have done more to prevent 9/11 and also that they could still prevent another attack from happening..I'm expecting your usual "It's Clinton's fault" response to that one.;)

Angela

[CrystalTears]

I'm not going to speak for PB, but I can bet that he most certainly doesn't believe that the government did not do anything or even assist in order to be able to go to war with the Middle East.

Could the government have taken the threats more seriously? Sure. I feel every administration could take better steps to secure the nation when they get any kind of national threat. Do I think they were deliberate to not do anything because they had a personal agenda? Hell no.

[Some Rogue]

Not to mention, I would be willing to bet that the government hears of hundreds if not thousands of threats every year. I am sure they investigate them all but what makes one more credible than another? Can you ever be 100% sure that one you think isn't credible really isn't? It's easy to monday morning quarterback and say what should have or could have been done.

[StrayRogue]

I'm pretty certain the Government would be more likely to take a threat from a known group of terrorits who have tried to blow up the WTC before, seriously over ParkBandit whose annoyed at his Pension not paying off.

Considering there was evidence from a rather large amount of other sources (all none-American, of course), its pretty futile and pretty stupid to think they didn't act quick enough because they didn't believe the credibility of the threat.

Regardless, I don't think their inepitude at dealing with the situation was due to an agenda either.

[Some Rogue]

It's like the boy who cried wolf though. They threaten us constantly and nothing ever comes of it. Why should we have believed them this time?

HE R TEH PREZ, HE SHULD KNOW!!11

[StrayRogue]

Um, they actually tried to carry about their devious schemes.

[Hulkein]

I bet 50% of Republicans believe in creationism.

:snickers:

I highly doubt that.

[Parkbandit]

PB, you really should include yourself in that 33% whether you agree or not..seriously.

It's not about how people hate Bush, Cheney, Haliburton and the other cronies..it's about how they could have done more to prevent 9/11 and also that they could still prevent another attack from happening..I'm expecting your usual "It's Clinton's fault" response to that one.;)

Angela

Thankfully, I didn't include the people who have a reading comprehension problem in that 33% or you would have bumped it up a notch.

This will be the third time I posted this sentance in 4 pages... it's not that difficult to read.

"federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East"

[Parkbandit]

I bet 50% of Republicans believe in creationism.

:snickers:

Really!

I can even spell out the word of the opposite party rather than shortening it into some Halfling speak like Xyelin.

WoW! This has what to do with anything in this thread? Oh, that's right.. nothing. I'm surprised you didn't spew more bullshit about Bush being the anti-christ.. at least that would have been slightly on topic.

[ElanthianSiren]

On statistics -- 1,000 is generally considered a large enough sample size. The thing that concerned me was how they split the question. I'd like to see 1000 random people for each section of the poll. They really are two issues IMO.

On the did the government intentionally "do" 911. No, but I think it's reasonable to ask: when Bush's 2000/1 administration was cutting previous anti terror programs and demoting extremely knowledgable individuals, exactly what did they think would happen?

Psychopaths, (including Jihadists), traditionally always scale UP their attacks if left to their own devices. For instance, a serial killer might start by stabbing people (fitting his profile criteria -- dark haired, blue eyed, fat, Chinese-American, whatever) in a park at night. Over time, he, (most are men and women tend to use less hands-on, less random violence like poison), grows bolder and starts acting in daylight. Then, he starts kidnapping first and slowly stabbing and strangling or something more ghastly to prolong or even reach the "high" that the behavior produces for him.

Elevation is part of their basic psychology/methodology. It's also why members of the outgoing cabinet were so worried after the Cole attack. That the Bush adminstration ignored their concern and the situation is questionable to many folks, as I'm sure Rice, Ashcroft, et al have studied basic psychology, which only serves to fuel the conspiracy fire that the new admin intentionally aided the attack to further an agenda. I doubt anyone thought that 9/11 would reach the scale that it did; the likely theory would seem to be a little bit larger Cole-type attack as terror groups tested the waters more. Alternately, you can simply believe that they really were clueless enough to think that terrorism wasn't an issue after the Yemen incident.

-M

[Landrion]

On statistics -- 1,000 is generally considered a large enough sample size.
-M

You know Im not debating that apparently lots of sources seem to think so. But personally when a pollster wants to talk about a population of 300+ million people they better have some damn fine measures to ensure the sample size is really random. 1000 is pretty slim sampling for New Jersey, never mind the United States.

[Skirmisher]

Why do you hate freedom?

[Ilvane]

PB my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you.

Do I believe that they wanted us to be attacked, and let it happen so we could go to war with Iraq? No. Do I think they tried to find any way to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11? Absolutely.

The fact that he didn't have anything to do with it didn't matter, plainly because the Bush administration started the mantra of "Iraq is a terrorist state with weapons of mass destruction." over and over, regardless of what was really going on.

I would have supported Bush entirely had he gone after the real people who attacked us on 9/11. Instead he took his want to go to Iraq and did it under the wrong reasons.

Do I think that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power? No.

I do however think we have missed out on going after the real threat to this country, and that is BinLaden and his cronies. After all the turmoil going on in Iraq, of course now Al Queda is there..we opened it up for them.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

That still has nothing to do with the original post, Ilvane. You're confusing the issues. The post is about people who believe that the federal officials basically allowed the attacks to happen in order to go to war.

[Ilvane]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm addressing specifically:


took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East

I've bolded how I addressed that part in my former post.

Hope that helps.

Angela

[Parkbandit]

On statistics -- 1,000 is generally considered a large enough sample size. The thing that concerned me was how they split the question. I'd like to see 1000 random people for each section of the poll. They really are two issues IMO.

On the did the government intentionally "do" 911. No, but I think it's reasonable to ask: when Bush's 2000/1 administration was cutting previous anti terror programs and demoting extremely knowledgable individuals, exactly what did they think would happen?

Psychopaths, (including Jihadists), traditionally always scale UP their attacks if left to their own devices. For instance, a serial killer might start by stabbing people (fitting his profile criteria -- dark haired, blue eyed, fat, Chinese-American, whatever) in a park at night. Over time, he, (most are men and women tend to use less hands-on, less random violence like poison), grows bolder and starts acting in daylight. Then, he starts kidnapping first and slowly stabbing and strangling or something more ghastly to prolong or even reach the "high" that the behavior produces for him.

Elevation is part of their basic psychology/methodology. It's also why members of the outgoing cabinet were so worried after the Cole attack. That the Bush adminstration ignored their concern and the situation is questionable to many folks, as I'm sure Rice, Ashcroft, et al have studied basic psychology, which only serves to fuel the conspiracy fire that the new admin intentionally aided the attack to further an agenda. I doubt anyone thought that 9/11 would reach the scale that it did; the likely theory would seem to be a little bit larger Cole-type attack as terror groups tested the waters more. Alternately, you can simply believe that they really were clueless enough to think that terrorism wasn't an issue after the Yemen incident.

-M

You are seriously dillusional if you believe that the terrorists started gearing up in the 9 months prior to 9-11 and keeping to themselves the 8 years prior. Hell, I think we could go back 50 years and figure out why we are having the trouble we are having now in the middle east. Appeasement simply doesn't work.

[CrystalTears]

OMG woman. Blaming Saddam in order to go to war is not the same thing as saying that the gov't allowed for us to get attacked on our soil in order to go to war. But whatever. You're right and I give up.

[ElanthianSiren]

You are seriously dillusional if you believe that the terrorists started gearing up in the 9 months prior to 9-11 and keeping to themselves the 8 years prior.

Where did I say that?

-M

[Parkbandit]

OMG ! Ilvane doesn't like the Bush Administration? WTF! WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN!?

Seriously, learn to read and comprehend. I could give two shits about your hatred of Bush and how he sucks so bad.. I've heard it 100 times from you already. NEWSFLASH!: WE KNOW YOU DO NOT LIKE BUSH. THANK YOU.

Your responses had zero to do with the poll and everything to do with moveon.org. Grats?

[Parkbandit]

Where did I say that?

-M

Which wall of text would you like me to refer you to?

[ElanthianSiren]

Specifically where I said what you accused me of saying and thinking.

-M

[Ilvane]

Typical, someone gives a decent response and you run saying..OMG UR BIASED1!!!!!!

That's why I don't bother usually anymore..TheE where are you??

Angela

PS. Contrary to the yapping of PB and buds, I am an INDEPENDANT..I'm not exactly thrilled with the democrats either.

[Hulkein]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm addressing specifically:



I've bolded how I addressed that part in my former post.

Hope that helps.

Angela

What you said and what was asked in the poll isn't the same.

[Parkbandit]

Typical, someone gives a decent response and you all run saying..OMG UR BIASED1!!!!!!

That's why I don't bother usually anymore..TheE where are you??

Angela

Show me a decent response by you ever in a political thread. Holy fucking hypocrite alert.

I'll type this slow so you can keep up.

THE POLL SAID: GOVERNMENT EITHER DID 9-11 ATTACK OR THEY KNEW ABOUT IT BUT DIDN"T STOP IT SO THEY COULD GO TO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

The poll never talked about Saddam and his connection to 9-11.

The poll never asked about WMDs.

The poll never talked about Iraq.

The poll never talked about not catching Bin Laden.

So show me your decent response again to this topic?



That's why I don't bother usually anymore..TheE where are you??

Angela

Given your past history in the political folder.. I do think that would be the best course of action. Thanks.

[Ilvane]

Are you really that thick that you can't comprehend what I was saying at all? I really don't think you are that stupid.

I said, and I'll repeat..I do not agree that the US allowed the attack to happen so they could go to war in the middle east.

The rest was my opinion on what they did do.

Is it really that hard to comprehend? My GOD.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

Thanks for editing your posts to reflect what you weren't saying before. Bravo.

[Parkbandit]

You are seriously dillusional if you believe that the terrorists started gearing up in the 9 months prior to 9-11 and keeping to themselves the 8 years prior. Hell, I think we could go back 50 years and figure out why we are having the trouble we are having now in the middle east. Appeasement simply doesn't work.


Specifically where I said what you accused me of saying and thinking.

-M


Let's see. Post #17 starts out with:


I don't think that the Bush administration took much action at all prior to 9/11 and then it goes on for the rest of the page on where the Bush adminstration allowed 9-11 to happen with 11 examples of cuts and other actions that fostered the terrorist activity. Not a single mention in that google puke about Clinton's terrorist initiatives (or inactions).

Then your second post, #40 states
No, but I think it's reasonable to ask: when Bush's 2000/1 administration was cutting previous anti terror programs and demoting extremely knowledgable individuals, exactly what did they think would happen?

Again, you posted problems with the Bush administration in handling terrorism.. specifically pointing out they did nothing about the USS Cole (even though that happened during Clinton's Presidency.. but throw it on Bush anyway).

Like I said.. you are dillusional if you believe that the environment for terrorist activity was created in the 9 months of the Bush administration and not of the 8 years of inactivity of the Clinton administration.

[Parkbandit]

Are you really that thick that you can't comprehend what I was saying at all? I really don't think you are that stupid.

I said, and I'll repeat..I do not agree that the US allowed the attack to happen so they could go to war in the middle east.

The rest was my opinion on what they did do.

Is it really that hard to comprehend? My GOD.

Angela

I do not agree that the US allowed the attack to happen so they could go to war in the middle east.

Hillary Clinton flips flops more than John Kerry. She is an ultra liberal who is trying to be main stream, yet she needs her lunatic hollywood pals to get her elected. I really hope she gets the Democratic nomination.


There, now I've brought as much to this conversation as you have. Grats to me?

[TheEschaton]

I think what ES was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is not that the Cole was Bush's "fault", but that it was troubling that when he came into office he completely disregarded the escalation of terrorism against America in the past 10 years to pursue other agendas, such as Star Wars, etc, etc.

Furthermore, I don't think ES is ignoring the terrorism that happened under Clinton. She's not arguing that terrorism is Bush's fault, she's arguing that Bush's inaction to terrorism is his fault. The reason she doesn't mention Clinton, I suppose, is because she probably doesn't believe Clinton was inactive in this regard (and IMO, he wasn't).

Of course, if you knew how to read, and follow a logical chain of reasoning, this would of been self evident already.

As to the original subject. I don't believe the gov't knew about 9/11 and let it slide so they could go to war with Iraq. I do believe that they were itching to go to war with Iraq, and PER THE DOCUMENTS the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) published, I do believe they took advantage of 9/11 to pursue that agenda. Specifically, refer to PNAC's analysis that their idea for change in the Middle East would only arise under the conditions of: A Republican presidency, a Republican controlled Congress, and a disaster of epic proportions which would sway public opinion. Last I checked: all three of those happened. Did the Republicans plan it? Or even let 9/11 slide to get the 3rd puzzle piece in place? I don't believe so.

But needless to say: if there was substantiated proof about it - based on the PNAC's stated doctrine - I would probably believe that.

Again, learn to read. Florida has already fucked this country already, apparently its lack of educational standard is now fucking with this board.

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

Again, you posted problems with the Bush administration in handling terrorism.. specifically pointing out they did nothing about the USS Cole (even though that happened during Clinton's Presidency.. but throw it on Bush anyway).

Like I said.. you are dillusional if you believe that the environment for terrorist activity was created in the 9 months of the Bush administration and not of the 8 years of inactivity of the Clinton administration.

Ahh, you misunderstood me. I can sum up what I posted in my first post (it's in chronological order), or you can go back and read it yourself. I do realize that there were presidents before Bush.

Further, I didn't at all imply that 9 months before the 911 attacks was when tensions between the US and these groups began; you can go pre-Israel if you like. I was saying that there was a great fear in the Clinton admininstration anti terrorism unit that we would be attacked again after the USS Cole, and that attack would be of a larger scale.

That fear was ignored by the (incoming) Bush administration's cabinet members, who gambled that there would be no attack, cut the Clinton programs, and relegated very current-terrorism-events knowledgable folks to backburner positions that limited their access to top cabinet officials. It's funny you should say inaction when Congress has documented the security programs being cut. What leads you to that conclusion? I'm curious.

-M

[Parkbandit]

I think what ES was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is not that the Cole was Bush's "fault", but that it was troubling that when he came into office he completely disregarded the escalation of terrorism against America in the past 10 years to pursue other agendas, such as Star Wars, etc, etc.

Furthermore, I don't think ES is ignoring the terrorism that happened under Clinton. She's not arguing that terrorism is Bush's fault, she's arguing that Bush's inaction to terrorism is his fault. The reason she doesn't mention Clinton, I suppose, is because she probably doesn't believe Clinton was inactive in this regard (and IMO, he wasn't).

Of course, if you knew how to read, and follow a logical chain of reasoning, this would of been self evident already.

Again, learn to read. Florida has already fucked this country already, apparently its lack of educational standard is now fucking with this board.

-TheE-

o rly.

You claim that I need to learn to read (obviously pissed about my posts regarding Ilvane) yet you use phrases like "I think what ES was saying " and "I don't think ES is ignoring the terrorism that happened under Clinton.", "The reason she doesn't mention Clinton, I suppose" and "is because she probably doesn't believe Clinton was inactive in this regard (and IMO, he wasn't)."

These are inferences and opinions you are drawing from your VERY narrow view of the political spectrum and not from her actual post. Her post does nothing but address the 9 months of the Bush administration and their shortfalls and does not mention once the shortfalls (I KNOW, CLINTON DID NOTHING WRONG EVER) of the Clinton administration. Here are just some of the terrorist activities that happened during the Clinton Administration. Please show me again how he was tough on Terrorism?

The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, which killed 6 and injured 1,000.

The 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 5 U. S. Military personnel.

The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured
200 U.S. Military personnel.

The 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000.

The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 sailors.


Do I think Bush did everything right leading up to 9-11? Of course not... I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. Clinton has a very questionable record on terrorism and to think all of this started on 1/20/01 shows me you are blinded by hatred and not facts.

[TheEschaton]

These are inferences and opinions you are drawing from your VERY narrow view of the political spectrum and not from her actual post.

And if you read her post right after mine, you would see that I was right in my inferences.

Listen, and try and get through this through your thick skull. I am not (and I don't think ES is either) saying terrorism didn't happen under Clinton. I'm not even saying that Clinton did everything right in regards to terrorism. What I am saying is A) he did more right than wrong in regards to terrorism, B) he focused almost obsessively on terrorism, C) he stopped many terrorist attacks because of this obsession, D) he ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING, and E) Bush ACTUALLY DID NOTHING about terrrorism, until 9/11.

And, the whole point of this argument is that, DESPITE Clinton's massive efforts, successful terrorist acts WERE escalating against America. And for Bush to have thus ignored terrorism, DESPITE active programs by his predecessor, and DESPITE escalation in spite of these programs, due to what *I* perceive to be party rancor, is idiotic, and negligent.

Edited to add: I think it REALLY started when your hero the Gipper threw away the whole "We don't deal with terrorists" mantra by funding and/or arming terrorists around the world, including both Osama and Saddam.

-TheE-

[Ilvane]

Don't bother, they don't listen anyway.

And CT I edited one post for clarification, on the thought that maybe I wasn't saying things clear enough. However, I've realized that an intelligent debate on related issues is not allowed.

I should really know better. [;)]

Angela

Edited for clarification! And if you don't like it..too bad.

[CrystalTears]

Yes, the one post that you were referencing saying that you were replying to what was being spoken of when you weren't, and when called on it you changed it. So don't give me this poor me people are ganging up on me when you backpeddled a post.

And it can never be a rational debate because 1) no side will ever change the opinion of the other and 2) some people can't seem to let go of certain issues and have to bring them up in every debate possible, even when it's even relevant.

[Ilvane]

Not so, but you can think what you want, because I frankly don't care any more.

Angela

[TheEschaton]

We don't change our opinion because A) your* opinions are not from a "reality-based" environment, and B) we're right.

You* don't change because to change would be too scary for you*.

*You in this case is a general you, in reference to conservatives in general, and not CT, because hell, she may not even be conservative for what I know.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

I hope that was all sarcasm. I could argue that some opinions on both sides are irrational and not reality-based, and opinions are never right as they are just that... opinions.

I just don't like people to state one thing, then when questioned, to go back and change what they said and THEN to have the balls to say "you misread what I said!".

I swear I need to learn to quote every single post I reply to because some of you change your stances like underwear.

[Some Rogue]

I hope that was all sarcasm. I could argue that some opinions on both sides are irrational and not reality-based, and opinions are never right as they are just that... opinions.

I just don't like people to state one thing, then when questioned, to go back and change what they said and THEN to have the balls to say "you misread what I said!".

I swear I need to learn to quote every single post I reply to because some of you change your stances like underwear.

You are wrong! I am right! You are just delusional and can't see that!

[Ilvane]

No, CT I changed the wording of one sentence..when I did that it was before anyone said anything about it, until Hulkein decided to make it look like I was changing my opinion.

Whatever, I really don't give a shit, don't ask why I'm still posting..heh.

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

PB why do you bother with this lot of tunnel visioned libbys.

[Parkbandit]

Don't bother, they don't listen anyway.

And CT I edited one post for clarification, on the thought that maybe I wasn't saying things clear enough. However, I've realized that an intelligent debate on related issues is not allowed.

I should really know better. [;)]

Angela

Edited for clarification! And if you don't like it..too bad.

Intelligent debate is not only allowed, we beg for it. Unfortunately, it's usually the same old moveon.org talking points from you.. which is far from intelligent.

[Parkbandit]

And if you read her post right after mine, you would see that I was right in my inferences.


LOL. Thank you for proving my point perfectly.

[Parkbandit]

PB why do you bother with this lot of tunnel visioned libbys.

I really should know better... but I just can't help myself. I just can't wait for 2008 and we can play the whole "WE WERE ROBBED AGAIN BY THOSE DAMN REPUBLICANS!" over and over again.

[Back]

Well, we all know reality has a liberal bias.

[Parkbandit]

You know.. I was thinking about this poll today. How the hell can you find 333 people in the country that really believes this stupidity?

Then it came to me... who usually answers these types of polls? People who have nothing better to do.. people who are not busy.. people who have an axe to grind... people who are blinded by their hatred...

Man, sounds like a Democrat to me. :)

[Back]

They probably took the poll in Seattle.

[Stanley Burrell]

I wouldn't have a hard time believing that 33% of the U.S. is retarded, by way of a practical IQ test, anyway.

/babble

[Latrinsorm]

However, I've realized that an intelligent debate on related issues is not allowed.
if you don't like it..too bad.Would you say you talk to Ariond a lot? I ask because your position of ":'( there's no intelligent debate" followed immediately by third-grader remarks reminds me a lot of him.

I think it's about time to swing this thread over to Melissa-adulation, so I'll get the ball rolling.

Melissa, I find you to be an intelligent individual! Working from this perspective makes gainful discussion more likely! I appreciate your contributions! And your breasts!

[Warriorbird]

Seems like making fun of this thread was clearly the best tactic. This stuff's hilarious.

"Intelligent debate is not only allowed, we beg for it. Unfortunately, it's usually the same old moveon.org talking points from you.. which is far from intelligent."

Right up there with the stellar Parkbandit/Xyelin group debate. It amounts to. Personal insult. Personal insult. Non personal insult. Insult. Insult. Insult. It gets lame after about 500 times.

[Back]

What fucks this world up is ignorance, denial of being ignorant and anger that lashes out at being inadequate. A patently “conservative”*value.

[Hulkein]

Get a life.

[Back]

Get a life.

He who smelt it...

[Sean of the Thread]

He who smelt it...

Another fine contribution.

[Back]

Another fine contribution.

And yours are so stellar.

[Snapp]

Please stop the bickering and get back on topic.

[Back]

If this 33% are retards, what do you consider the 50% in the following article?

Half of U.S. Still Believes Iraq Had WMD (http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2006/08/07/ap2930876.html)
By CHARLES J. HANLEY , 08.07.2006, 06:24 AM


Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

[Landrion]

You know.. I was thinking about this poll today. How the hell can you find 333 people in the country that really believes this stupidity?

Then it came to me... who usually answers these types of polls? People who have nothing better to do.. people who are not busy.. people who have an axe to grind... people who are blinded by their hatred...

Man, sounds like a Democrat to me. :)

Ah I dunno, sometimes people do such things just for kicks or as a protest againt the poll. Remember when Jedis appeared as some 3 percent of the british population during a religion poll?

[Sean of the Thread]

Remember when Jedis appeared as some 3 percent of the british population during a religion poll?

Except those people are serious.

[Parkbandit]

Seems like making fun of this thread was clearly the best tactic. This stuff's hilarious.

"Intelligent debate is not only allowed, we beg for it. Unfortunately, it's usually the same old moveon.org talking points from you.. which is far from intelligent."

Right up there with the stellar Parkbandit/Xyelin group debate. It amounts to. Personal insult. Personal insult. Non personal insult. Insult. Insult. Insult. It gets lame after about 500 times.

The Hypocrite Speaks.

Grats!

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/hypocrite.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Hey. Keep following in line with exactly the pattern I described!

:)

Way to go! You're a better person! It's like I say something and then you have to charge in with the insult like some Republican Darth Vader. Sort of like, oh yes, you went to the images...like this.

The face of the compassionate conservative.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/QuirkyPandaCub/abrigation/pinkvader.jpg

[Landrion]

I found myself unable to look away from that Darth Vader for several seconds. Damn you Warriorbird.

[Warriorbird]

;)

[Parkbandit]

Hey. Keep following in line with exactly the pattern I described!

:)

Way to go! You're a better person! It's like I say something and then you have to charge in with the insult like some Republican Darth Vader. Sort of like, oh yes, you went to the images...like this.




You continue to prove how right I am. You are the classic example of a hypocrite.

It's sad, but true.

[Sean of the Thread]

You continue to prove how right I am. You are the classic example of a hypocrite.

It's sad, but true.

QFT.

[Warriorbird]

Cute little bandwagon squad. I'm glad we reinforce each other. Remember to come up for air occassionally, Xyelin.

[CrystalTears]

OMG please stop. Get back on topic or let it be.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."

"The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html?source=mypi

Ick. Then again, pretty much everybody thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11, including George Bush, when deductive reasoning and a little research into Muslim culture expels this myth quite thoroughly.

I don't think any American who's.. well, American, would have let something like 9-11 happen. I think the Bush Administration was in shock over it happening, it was the single largest civillian attack in our history. Given the circumstances, I'd say that the White House's reaction was pretty damn good, as was the State of New York. The Senators put aside party politics to clean up-- and refused to talk party in the midst of the whole crisis.

I think 9-11 happening in the first place is a combination fault of the Clinton Admin. and the Bush Admin, because it appears BOTH had the intelligence that alluded to this. I can't crucify either for overlooking it though.. they must get TONS of stuff like this all the time, and I don't know how *I* would seperate it.

I dislike Bush for going into Iraq instead of fixing up Afghanistan (the whole world stood behind us going into Afghanistan).. but I applaud the immediate effort put forth by all in the wake of 9-11.

[Sean of the Thread]

Ick. Then again, pretty much everybody thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11


O RLY?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

O RLY?


Yeah, including 70% of those fighting in Iraq. I didn't say EVERYBODY did, but the dominant opinion of most was that we were in Iraq because of 9-11.

[CrystalTears]

:banghead:

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah, including 70% of those fighting in Iraq.


O RLY X2?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

O RLY X2?


YA RLY.

[HarmNone]

Take the personal battles off the boards. CT has asked you to do so previously. Subsequent posts involving said personal battle will be removed.

[Skirmisher]

Yah, everyone play nice or i smack you in the head with my trusty truckers toothpick and tire tester courtesy of some BP truckstop in PA.

:club:

[Parkbandit]

Yah, everyone play nice or i smack you in the head with my trusty truckers toothpick and tire tester courtesy of some BP truckstop in PA.

:club:

Daddy like...

:)

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, including 70% of those fighting in Iraq. I didn't say EVERYBODY did, but the dominant opinion of most was that we were in Iraq because of 9-11.

Incorrect as usual. Look up UN Resolutions 1990-2001 for a clue.

Thanks.

[TheEschaton]

Ummm, the resolutions of the early 90s said that Iraq had to disarm. Scott Ritter and UNSCOM went in, and in 1998, said they were satisfied that Iraq WAS disarmed. From '98 to 2001, the only resolutions passed on the subject maintained that Iraq had to allow inspectors back in, since they kicked them out, before sanctions would be lifted.

Why don't you try reading the resolutions, INSTEAD OF FUCKING REPEATING THE TALKING POINTS YOU'RE GIVEN.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Um, TheE every single resolution up until the war had serious misgiving (being light here) about Iraq's claim of disarmament.

[TheEschaton]

UNSCOM issued a report saying that Iraq was disarmed. The UN Security Council, for some reason, chose not to heed the report of its own commission, and instead politicized Saddam's kicking out of UNSCOM (Saddam accused UNSCOM as being a cover to spy on security issues of Iraq) as "proof" that he hadn't disarmed.

The head of UNSCOM later admitted that the U.S. did ask them to look for materials not related to the mission of UNSCOM.

End of story.

-TheE-

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Incorrect as usual. Look up UN Resolutions 1990-2001 for a clue.

Thanks.

This was a Survey, actually, and has nothing to do with the UN. It has to do with what's being said to Soldiers and the attitudes of the American people, and that just because it's popular opinion doesn't mean it's right. By "most" I was refferring to the public, and soldiers in particular. If I said that the UN had thought we were going in because of 9-11, then maybe you wouldn't sound like an asshat for not reading what I said and the context in which it was said before replying.

And for the record, Iraq's non-disarming and problems with the UN had nothing to do with 9-11. It's good and well that we thought Iraq was a problem, but I still think it's fucked up that our Government used something non-associated (9-11) to invade.

[Sean of the Thread]

YA RLY.

Could you possibly provide some data or sources for the "facts" you're making up?

[Daniel]

UNSCOM issued a report saying that Iraq was disarmed. The UN Security Council, for some reason, chose not to heed the report of its own commission, and instead politicized Saddam's kicking out of UNSCOM (Saddam accused UNSCOM as being a cover to spy on security issues of Iraq) as "proof" that he hadn't disarmed.

The head of UNSCOM later admitted that the U.S. did ask them to look for materials not related to the mission of UNSCOM.

End of story.

-TheE-

O Rly??

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-intr.htm


. Thirdly, these overall circumstances have meant that, in spite of the years that have passed and the extensive work that has been undertaken, it has not been possible to verify, fully, Iraq's statements with respect to the nature and magnitude of its proscribed weapons programmes and their current disposition.


JESUS FUCKING CHRIST READ THE REPORT FOR YOURSELF AND STOP GOING OFF YOUR SPEAKING POINTS.

Was that how it went?


Oh well, fuck it. Close enough.

[Daniel]

Could you possibly provide some data or sources for the "facts" you're making up?


She's talking about a very small independant survey that was done about 8 months ago with soldiers in iraq. It asked a question like: How much do you feel the war in Iraq had to do with 911

1: Not at all
2-6: Various degrees from alot to a little.


They then present the findings as 70% of soldiers believe (2-6) that Iraq had something to do with 9-11.

Anyone who knows anything about statistics can see that the nature of this question is inherently biased. Not only does it not give any room for interpretation but it also intentionally tries to skew the results. Most people do not answer ranged questions at the extremes. Therefore, it's natural that even someone who knows that Saddam had nothing to do with 9\11 personally will maybe even put a 2 because he may think one event precipitated the other, or what not.

That's not even taking into account the fact that most soldiers don't want to be bothered with reporters while overseas.

I used to say whatever the fuck I thought would get them out of my face the quickest.

[Sean of the Thread]

She's talking about a very small independant survey that was done about 8 months ago with soldiers in iraq. It asked a question like: How much do you feel the war in Iraq had to do with 911

1: Not at all
2-6: Various degrees from alot to a little.


They then present the findings as 70% of soldiers believe (2-6) that Iraq had something to do with 9-11.

Anyone who knows anything about statistics can see that the nature of this question is inherently biased. Not only does it not give any room for interpretation but it also intentionally tries to skew the results. Most people do not answer ranged questions at the extremes. Therefore, it's natural that even someone who knows that Saddam had nothing to do with 9\11 personally will maybe even put a 2 because he may think one event precipitated the other, or what not.

That's not even taking into account the fact that most soldiers don't want to be bothered with reporters while overseas.

I used to say whatever the fuck I thought would get them out of my face the quickest.

Well said and my point exactly.

[ElanthianSiren]

Blix's book, "Disarming Iraq" is a pretty good book if anyone's interested.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Blix's book, "Disarming Iraq" is a pretty good book if anyone's interested.

-M

Would I look in the fiction section of Barnes and Noble?

[TheEschaton]

Cause Hans Blix is such a partisan Democrat, too. ;)

-TheE-

[Back]

Whats funny is that if you consider that 60% of Americans don’t believe in the war in Iraq, that leaves less than 30% of those who do. Retarded?