[MicroBalrog]

As these unpleasant people in Iraq keep on potting American soldiers at the rate of about one a day, we have a suggestion for the local command. Let anyone caught in the possession of a rocket propelled grenade (RPG) be pigged on the spot. Not shot, just pigged. That is not even against any stipulation of the Geneva Conference, but I bet it would work. (Being "pigged" is being doused in pig viscera.)

!!!!

Despite the squeaking of those who would have it otherwise, the United States of America remains the last free nation on earth. God made it so. The Bill of Rights keeps it so. And the National Rifle Association keeps that so.


Now, I love the Commentaries. But these two statements, appearing side-by-side... kinda sounds wierd, right?:what:

[Navy joe]

What's the problem? Would someone please pass the pork rinds, scrapple, and souse?

I really got to get the money for a Gunsite vacation while that man is still with us.

[MicroBalrog]

Uhm, so we want America to be free, but not Iraq?

[Navy joe]

No mention of curtailing Iraqi freedom, we'd just appreciate it if they'd stop lobbing flying shaped charges at us. This way the lobbers and future lobbers would understand this in no uncertain terms. Death isn't much of a deterrent, maybe that would be.

Truthfully, we'd never do it nor should we. America, unlike a few certain other countries, must always act based on its ideal of tolerance for different kinds. Ideal. Unfortunately we aren't there yet.

Practically death does not deter the RPG launchers. If I was in charge I'd see that a whole bunch of new RPG rockets made it into the black market over there. You know, the kind that blow up while still in the tube. :evil:

[Sergeant Bob]

Do you think we let Germans walk around with RPG's immediately after WWII? The Japanese? What would you do if you saw a Palestinian walking around the "Occupied Territories" (not my definition) with an RPG?

[MicroBalrog]

anyone caught in the possession of a rocket propelled grenade (RPG)

There's probably thousands of Iraqis "in the possession" of these things. Most of them have nothing to do with those attacking coalition forces.

[longeyes]

You can never have too much creative imagination in terms of
military tactics and strategy.

[MicroBalrog]

What would you do if you saw a Palestinian walking around the "Occupied Territories" (not my definition) with an RPG?

It is cureently illegal for IDF troops patrolling the Disputed Territories to fire on Palestinians, even armed ones, if they aren't attacking (obviously, that's not what happens during combat missions.:) ). As a matter of fact, up until Defensive Wall, even returning fire, unless strictly necessary, was frowned upon. A few stories to demonstrate why:

"The conflict" was being discussed on a local radio station. A Palestinian called in, identifying himself as "Ahmad". He continued to condemn Arafat and his cronies in the strongest terms. The radio host asked: "Ahmad, aren't you afraid they'll come and get you?". Ahmad: "No, I'm not scared, I have two M-16 rifles at home".

During a raid on Beit-Jallah, a Palestinian, carrying what seemed to a helicopter crew to be a gun, was shot by the doorgunner IIRC. It was a cordless drill, not a gun.

[Thumper]

The good Col. (Ret.) hails from a simpler time when the concept of "Us Vs. Them" was much more firmly delineated.

[Waitone]

This is one really weird war.

Seems every day if find myself saying, "You mean we are not. . . ." I find about these items only after we start doing something we haven't done prior.

Examples
--Using Iraqui military to clean up debris
--Standing up an Iraqi police force
--Offering a reward for Sadaam's mutts
--Offering a reward for Sadaam's head
--Starting up an Iraqi TV station to put out our propaganda
--and so forth.

Now I'm surprised to learn we don't have a shoot on sight policy for RPG's. Abdul wants to tote an RPG? Well, Bub, there is a pretty stiff price to be paid if you are seen. Go ahead. Last week the US sniped two vendors at an outdoor arms market. That oughtta slow down business.

My view? A lot of nonsense we see attacking US troops could be alleviated with judicious use of sniping teams. Then again I'm not paid to think.

[Ian]

A war of occupation is virtually impossible to win. We will continue to lose troops here and there, a few each day (possibly more) until we leave the country. The ONLY ways to win this is to peacefully persuade the Fedayeen (or whoever is shooting at US troops) that they are better off having US troops occupy their country. The ideas of "shoot em all" and "kill so many that they get the idea" simply don't work. I don't say that in a touchy-feely new age way, but as a conclusion from historical research.

Intimidation in a guerrilla-type conflict results in a *more* determined opposition, not a meek one. This can be seen in:
* the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (the Russians slaughtered a full third of the civilian population of Afghanistan and still lost)
* the Boer war (the British invented concentration camps for use on the women and children of the Transvaal and still had a mighty fight on their hands)
* the American Revolution in the south (Tarleton, among others, wantonly killed patriots and the Brits still had their rear handed to them)
* Vietnam (you can say that insufficient force was used - but look at Afghanistan, where overwhelming force still failed to have the desired effect)
* the mass city bombing raids of World War II, on both sides (not a guerrilla conflict, but mass bombing of civilians consistantly had the effect of strengthening morale rather than weakening it)
* Rome was forced to retreat from Scotland by the guerrilla resistance and raids it suffered there
* Napoleon was utterly incapable of holding Spain for the same reasons

You can talk about friend vs foe all day long, but ultimately you must have a plan to remove the foe. The theory of killing the bad guys until there are no more bad guys is, in this environment, a laughable notion that is thoroughly demolished by the most cursory study of similar historical events. Military intimidation is like holding a carrot on a fishing rod in front of your horse. Every step towards the goal takes the goal a step farther away. Every time US troops kill an Iraqi, they are killing someone's father, brother, cousin, uncle, and nephew. This by itself creates more motivated fighters. Even obliterating the countryside wholesale and garrisoning every city cannot provide the desired result, as the Russians demonstrated.

So, how does the US win the occupation of Iraq?

[Duncan Idaho]

Uhm, so we want America to be free, but not Iraq?WTH? is right.

Where do you come up with this stuff? :confused:

[MicroBalrog]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

See above.

[c_yeager]

Am i the only one that isnt in the slightest bit concerned with Iraqi freedom? I mean its not like they have EVER been free. Why do we have to be the ones to give it to them? I thought we invaded that country to keep those people from trying to blow up out landmarks and killing our people over here.

[igor]

Pithily put, yeager.

[Art Eatman]

The weird thing is, if these leftover Saddamites would quit shooting, our military would be out of there much sooner...

Art

[Duncan Idaho]

See above.I did, and as usual it was nonsense.

[Iain]

Am i the only one that isnt in the slightest bit concerned with Iraqi freedom? I mean its not like they have EVER been free. Why do we have to be the ones to give it to them? I thought we invaded that country to keep those people from trying to blow up out landmarks and killing our people over here

Listening to Fox News?

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with OBL as far as anyone can prove. In fact it is more than likely that OBL hates Saddam as a non-religious leader of a muslim country.

And not the slightest bit concerned about Iraqi freedom? So what about the Bush administrations ''War of Liberation''? Or did Fox not mention that bit in their haste to blame Saddam for 9/11?

A British journalist was nearly got by an intelligence operation to link one of the hijackers to an Iraqi embassy. It was disproved and was thought to be a deliberate attempt to give cause for blaming Saddam. When the intelligence community has to make stuff up you know they are on to a loser with the truth.

What really amazes me is that you don't trust your government with the 2nd Amendment, but will swallow whole the lies about this war.

[MicroBalrog]

I did, and as usual it was nonsense.

Don't blame me, blame the quote.:D

[BigG]

Since the war was officially declared over in May, there have been more murders in DC than our boys have been popped in Iraq. Stats courtesy of our biased media, of course.

Just depends whose ox is being gored, I guess.

[Keith]

St. Johns,

What amazes me is that you can swallow the leftist media garbage without questioning it.
The bare facts of the matter are that we had a cease-fire in place with Iraq. The terms of that cease-fire dictated that Iraq turn over all WMD's for destruction and halt all manufacture or research into these weapons.

In the ten years following the cease-fire, Iraq was caught in dozens of violations - any one of which (no matter how small) was justification to resume hostilities! And since the war we have found many more violations; including a nuclear enrichment centerfuge, among other things!

And there is no doubt that Saddam would give Islamic fanatics like OBL such weapons! If a white supremist like Hitler can find common cause with the Japanese against a shared enemy, then two Muslims can certainly find common cause against the west.

I get tired of those who constantly apologize for and defend dictators and mass murderers like Saddam. Get your head out of your behind and take a look at the real world! Kissing the feet of terrorists and dictators is poor foreign policy.

Keith

[Iain]

Misunderstandings again Keith.

No love for Saddam. Educated enough to recognise ''leftist propaganda'' (and rightist too). No major problems with the war, Saddam was in contravention of UN resolutions etc. He may have had WMD's (see Kelly inquiry for the controversy surrounding this)

What gets me mad is the Muslims vs the West mentality. You think Saddam would pass WMD's on to OBL when OBL might well use them in Iraq? No love lost between them. The attempts to link iraq to 9/11 are all lies and intelligence operations.

Regarding Iraqi's as 2nd class citizens also makes me irate.

[SkunkApe]

What really amazes me is that you don't trust your government with the 2nd Amendment, but will swallow whole the lies about this war. -St John

Not all of us swallow these lies.

Hang in there. Like Watergate and Vietnam, the truth will come out eventually.

[SkunkApe]

Since the war was officially declared over in May, there have been more murders in DC than our boys have been popped in Iraq. -BigG

Washington DC has a lot of murders, so thats justification for attacking a foreign nation under false pretenses? Again, please, who uses false logic here?

Keep in mind, also, that I'd say that most of of those D.C. murders are criminals killing other criminals. In Iraq, its our servicemen who are dying.

[Keith]

What gets me mad is the Muslims vs the West mentality. You think Saddam would pass WMD's on to OBL when OBL might well use them in Iraq?

Saddam FUNDED Islamic terrorists! This isn't a "secret" or an accusation from some obscure intelligence report! He was funding groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and doing so openly. And these people (including Al Qaeda) came in and out of Iraq freely.
These people may not have a shared vision of the ideal Islamic state, but they did have a common enemy - us!

Saddam was in contravention of UN resolutions etc.

Then WHAT is your problem! Saddam was in contravention and now he's disguised as a Turkish hooker and looking for a new hiding place every day. What's the problem?

Keith

[MicroBalrog]

Keith - and how does that make Cooper's idea of humiliating people over possession of inanimate objects any better?

Nevertheless, I agree about the terrorism part.

[Gordon Fink]

Do you think we let Germans walk around with RPG's immediately after WWII? The Japanese?

No, but then again we didn’t call that war “Operation Germanic Freedom” or “Operation Liberate Japan.”


Am i the only one that isnt in the slightest bit concerned with Iraqi freedom? … Why do we have to be the ones to give it to them?

Well, one would think that a military adventure called Operation Iraqi Freedom might have something to do with bringing freedom to Iraqis.

~G. Fink

[Iain]

He has funded terrorist organisations yes - but the attempt to link him to 9/11 was a sham. OBL and Saddam were/are not friends. The whole dossier of evidence is seriously subject to question in the light of the Kelly affair.

Glad Saddam has gone, think you are labelling me with the ''liberal blissninnie'' brush before you understood what I was saying. Maybe I wasn't clear.

I thought we invaded that country to keep those people from trying to blow up out landmarks and killing our people over here

This statement infuriates me. The war was stated as one of ''liberation'', not to go over and neuter another country and humiliate it's population.

[Keith]

Keith - and how does that make Cooper's idea of humiliating people over possession of inanimate objects any better?

I don't necessarily agree with Cooper on this one. Not that I really give a damn whether someone is "humiliated" or not. In my opinion, the correct treatment of an individual caught with a prohibited weapon in a war zone is to kill them (if he is actually wielding the weapon) or put them in a cage until the war is over if he drops it and puts his hands up.
Humiliating a Muslim with pig entrails is only going to feed the opposition. And personally, I wouldn't want to drive around in 110 degree heat with a bucket of pig entrails in the trunk of my vehicle, waiting for the opportunity to douse someone with them...

Keith

[Keith]

He has funded terrorist organisations yes - but the attempt to link him to 9/11 was a sham.

I'll have to call you on that one. Please provide one quote from any government source that attempts to link Saddam to 9/11. If you can't provide such a cite, I'll just wait for an apology.

In fact though, Saddam is clearly linked to terrorists in the broader sense. You'd have to be a complete ninny to ignore the fact that the MAJORITY of the "irregulars" killed or captured since the start of the war are NOT Iraqi's! They are Jordanians, Syrians, Saudi's, Yemeni's, Palestinian's - everything but Iraqi's!
These are not college kids on holiday. They are terrorists; funded, recruited and trained by organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. And this has been an excellent opportunity to get them out in the open so we can shoot or drop bombs on them.

Keith

[Iain]

A British journalist was told on the 10th of Sept by an intelligence source that one of the hijackers had recently driven from Frankfurt to Prague, was entirely made up. Can't find a link.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/ US/globalshow_030425.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2002/0123phantom.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/9/111622.shtml

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0307/ridgeway.php

From this last one I'd like to point out the phrase:

In his presentation, Powell contended to the Security Council that the existence of the Ansar al-Islam camp near the Iranian border was evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. But British intelligence quickly refuted that claim. "Baghdad's writ genuinely does not run there," a senior British government source told the Independent,

[Duncan Idaho]

Hang in there. Like Watergate and Vietnam, the truth will come out eventually.Is it 1969 yet?

[SkunkApe]

Bush Links Blizzard to Iraq, Bin Laden

APP (Associated People's Parody)

February 18th, 2003



(APP) - President George Bush called for military strikes against Iraq today in response to the record breaking blizzard that buried the U.S. eastern seaboard Monday. "Osama Bin Laden, the defiant military dictator of Iraq, continues to snub League of Nations inspectors searching for weapons of mass disruption." Bush said. " The recent snow-assault on the east coast...is a reminder of Iraq's evil-ness...and proof that is illegally developing a weather machine."

In a previous briefing, Secretary of State Colin Powell described the alleged weather machine as "capable of massive weather disruption through use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's). These UAV's disperse snow-generating chemicals pollutants into the clouds..." said Powell. Powell described this as "a material breach of UN Resolutions." Today Colin Powell will present further evidence today that Iraq is evading inspectors by moving the massive weather-disrupting satellite dishes to remote locations, sometimes just hours before inspector visits.

White House Spokesman Ari Fleisher stated today that chemical pollutants had been found in snow on the east coast, creating widespread speculation of a direct link to the weather machine. He later acknowledged that similar pollutants are created by local industries.

Powell will trace Iraq's weather machine program to 80's-era support from "Communist Russia." At the time, the superpower was willing to support Bin Laden and overlook his dismal human right's record in order to vie for control of Iraq's strategic oil reserves.

Iraq's foreign minister Naji Sabri denies the weather machine charges as ludicrous and claims that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were in fact supplied by the United States and were destroyed under previous inspection regimes. "Bush just wants Iraq's Oil," Sabri stated to Al-Jazeera on Saturday. Sabri also asserted that Sadam Hussein is the leader of Iraq, not Bin Laden.

State Department officials refuse public comment but are candidly brushing off Sabri's responses. "Hey, who are people going to trust?" said one official with a wink.

Military strikes are set to begin Wednesday barring massive civil disobedience, a contingency Attorney General Ashcroft describes as "remote."

-------------------------------
Copyleft 2003 - Associated People's Parody (APP)


http://ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/021803_bush_links_blizzard_to_iraq.htm

APP (Associated People's Parody)

February 18th, 2003

[Keith]

A British journalist was told on the 10th of Sept by an intelligence source that one of the hijackers had recently driven from Frankfurt to Prague, was entirely made up. Can't find a link.

I see, so an anonymous "source" told a British journalist something... The last anonymous source that came forward just slit his own wrists after protesting that the BBC had lied about what he said.


In his presentation, Powell contended to the Security Council that the existence of the Ansar al-Islam camp near the Iranian border was evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. But British intelligence quickly refuted that claim. "Baghdad's writ genuinely does not run there,"

The camp did indeed exist. It was attacked and the survivors were chased out of country by a few spec ops guys and some Kurds. Obviously, if Saddam didn't shut down the camp it was because he wanted it there.

But this is all beside the point. You have been unable to supply a single quote from a government source attempting to link Saddam to 9/11. Yet, you accuse the US government of making such a claim...

If you can't supply the quote, you are guilty of repeating a falsehood that you picked up in some lefty newspaper some place. If the claim had been made, it would be easy to supply the cite yet none of the links you provide lead to such a claim..

You owe us a retraction and an apology.

Keith

[Giant]

Quote:

"There's probably thousands of Iraqis "in the possession" of these things. Most of them have nothing to do with those attacking coalition forces."


On Iraqi people in possession of rocket propelled gernades; turn them in or be consiered a terrorist. Those persisting in RPG ownership should not be surprised if the practice results in their being lit up in the crosshairs of a scope attached to a 308 NATO sniper rifle, or perhaps one of the newer 338 Magnum snipers.

On the black market exploding RPG units, it would work a few times and then the price for certified safe units would go way up! Of course the certified safe ones could also be made to go boom, pre launch.

Giant

[MicroBalrog]

On Iraqi people in possession of rocket propelled gernades; turn them in or be consiered a terrorist. Those persisting in RPG ownership should not be surprised if the practice results in their being lit up in the crosshairs of a scope attached to a 308 NATO sniper rifle, or perhaps one of the newer 338 Magnum snipers.

ATF Operations manual, anyone?

[Iain]

keith - did you read those links? There really is no need to be so aggressive.

Even the alleged meetings between Mohammed Atta - a suspected leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers - and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague are inconclusive. The Czech government has sent conflicting reports concerning this meeting and, even if the meeting took place, the supposed topic of discussion - an attack on a Radio Free Europe radio transmitter used to broadcast anti-Hussein programming - is a far cry from the 9/11 attacks.

That is what I was talking about, from the 3rd link.

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks...Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

from the CBS link.

I have already quoted from Powell. Did you read what British Intelligence said about that camp? "Baghdad's writ genuinely does not run there,". You should read all the facts before writing things like the following:

If you can't supply the quote, you are guilty of repeating a falsehood that you picked up in some lefty newspaper some place. If the claim had been made, it would be easy to supply the cite yet none of the links you provide lead to such a claim..
You owe us a retraction and an apology.

I feel I am owed the apology.

[Keith]

You have failed to provide a single cite where an American government official said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

I'm still waiting.

Keith

[Iain]

It's there...

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks...Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

[Keith]

So what? That doesn't have anything to do with the US government blaming Saddam for 9/11, as you claimed.

9/11 merely opened up one of the three components needed to justify a "righteous" war.

1. You must have a moral reason.

Unquestionably, Saddam was trash that needed to be "taken out".

2. You must have a legal pretext.

Again, the legal reasons are clear enough with the nuemrous violations of the cease fire agreement.

3. You must have public support.

This is what 9/11 gave Bush - the anger of the American people. So, we went in and cleaned house in Afghanistan and then went and took care of business in Iraq.

If you want to debate the legitimacy of these items, I'd take no particular umbrage. But, you're not doing that! You're making up (or repeating) false assertions made by people in the Arab media.

The US government never made the claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11. When you repeat such tripe, your argument is based on NOTHING!

Keith

[Iain]

Keith - believe what you want to. Not going to change your mind if I found a quote of GW saying ''Saddam remote controlled the planes himself''.

The story about the visit to the Iraqi embassy was sold as proof to at least one journalist. I have stated the case. End of it.

[Keith]

The story about the visit to the Iraqi embassy was sold as proof to at least one journalist.

Again, British journalism is not exactly a basion of truthfullness as the Kelly affairs demonstrates.
But even this is an unnamed source...

You must provide a cite.

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

i dont see how you can criticize st john for that when you make the same mistake with the continual sniping at the BBC, which is based solely on statements made by various Labour Party functionaries (when they arent labelling Kelly as a "Walter Mitty" style fantasist (which is strange as they stated his evidence was truthful - wonder what they could be referring to?)) :rolleyes:

besides, there is more coming out on the first day of the Hutton inquiry:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1016522,00.html

[MicroBalrog]

And all that relates to the subject at hand how?:confused:

[SkunkApe]

Oh, for crying out loud. The Bush administration has, from the very beginning, tried to link Hussein with Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda/9-11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/26/national/main523326.shtml

Bush Administration Links Iraq, Al Qaeda

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2002

(AP) President Bush's national security adviser said al Qaeda operatives have found refuge in Baghdad, and accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime of helping Osama bin Laden's followers develop chemical weapons.

Condoleezza Rice's statements, aired Wednesday in a broadcast interview, are the strongest yet alleging contacts between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.

She made her accusations as the Bush administration continued to make its case to a skeptical world that Saddam should be removed from power, by force if necessary. They followed accusations from Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that Mr. Bush was playing politics with the debate over war in Iraq.

"There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here," Rice said.

She said much of the information was coming from al Qaeda operatives captured since the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings. This included several senior leaders whom the U.S. alleges organized terrorist attacks.

"We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time," Rice said. "We know too that several of the (al Qaeda) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:


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

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."


The Bush administraion has made a deliberate attempt to confuse the (gullible) American public into thinking that Iraq was somehow related to the 9/11 attacks. Its worked:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0701-05.htm

Published on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 by the Associated Press
Poll Says Most Americans Believe Saddam-9/11 Link Has Been Proven


WASHINGTON - Seven in 10 people in a poll say the Bush administration implied that Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States.

And a majority, 52 percent, say they believe the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization.

The number that believes this country has found weapons of mass destruction is 23 percent, down from 34 percent in May, according to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

Prewar assertions by the Bush administration about al-Qaida's ties to the Iraqi government have not been proven, and weapons of mass destruction have not been found since the invasion of Iraq.

CIA officials have said that two trailers recovered in Iraq were mobile biological weapons laboratories; Bush administration officials have called the trailers the most significant evidence yet that their allegations of Saddam's weapons programs were accurate.

Only four in 10 of those polled, 39 percent, said they thought the government was being fully truthful when it presented evidence of links between Saddam and al-Qaida. But among those who thought the government was not telling the truth, people were more likely to say the government was "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" rather than "presenting evidence they knew was false."

The number who want the United Nations to take a leadership role in Iraq has grown from 50 percent in April to 64 percent now.

More than 60 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since President Bush declared May 1 that major combat had ended. But the American public remains committed to sticking with the Iraq mission.

Eight in 10 said the United States has the responsibility to remain in Iraq as long as necessary until there is a stable government.

The poll of 1,051 adults was taken June 18-25 by Knowledge Networks and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

© 2003 The Associated Press

[SkunkApe]

And if Bush said tomorrow that the Syrians killed Santa Claus, most of you lackeys would be ready to invade.

Bush lied. You fell for it. Live and learn.

[Keith]

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

Oh, so a retired general nosing around for a democratic party nomination claims that somebody (who he won't name) from the "White House" called him and told him what to say...
That doesn't even make sense! Why would anyone from the White House call a prominent democrat and ask him to say anything?
This is same silly BS that has been tossed around from the beginning. The only people who ever heard our government link Saddam and 9/11 are members of the opposition party or far-left journalists. And when asked for names and particulars they get vague and change the subject...

And then this stuff gets repeated by the general public on forums like this, and when we ask them for particulars, we again get nothing at all...

Keith

[Keith]

Bush lied. You fell for it. Live and learn.

Everything Bush has ever said is out there on the Internet. If he claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11 it should be easy to provide the exact quote and the date it was said.

I'm waiting...

Or perhaps someone lied about him saying that, in which case you fell for it and are a lackey for Ted Kennedy and company.

Keith

[SkunkApe]

Look, junior, that's the way its done in politics. Its called "plausible deniability".

You imply what you mean without coming right out and saying it in grade-school-simplistic terms. Good politicians leave themselves some wiggle room to avoid getting caught in a flat out lie. Except Clinton ( I did not have sexual relations with that woman), and even he got away with it.

You think that the idea that "the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization." just popped into 52% of Americans heads?

Figure it out.

Did you even read St John's links? Or mine? Why don't you write a letter to Bush and ask him flat out:

"Did Saddam Hussein have anything at all to do with 9/11?"

You think you'll get a yes-or-no response?

[Thumper]

Keith (or junior, or whatever),

I don't think he can find his quote...that must be frustrating.

:D

[SkunkApe]

Oh, jeez, another toady...

[SkunkApe]

And since when is Condoleezza Rice "nosing around for a democratic party nomination"?

[Keith]

You think that the idea that "the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization." just popped into 52% of Americans heads?

Yeah, I do. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the average man.
And if I'm wrong, you'll provide the quote from the government figure who made it, won't you?
And if you can't provide a quote, you'll apologize for being a dupe of the left, won't you?

This whole thing rather reminds of another leftist lie that has been repeated so often it has become "truth" in the minds of the stupid: the myth that the US supplied Saddam with vast amounts of weapons. In fact, over a twenty year period from the Carter administration through Bush the elder, we gave Saddam a total of five million bucks worth of weapons!

The truth doesn't seem to matter as long as the lie gets repeated often enough.

Note that the following reports uses "thousands of millions" instead of the more familiar (to Americans) "billions".

1998 report on the Iraqi military for the Center for Strategic & International Studies:
In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq.
The UK sold $330 million-worth of arms.
Germany $995 million
China $5,500 million
France $9,240 million
Russia (USSR) $31,800 million.

Yet, according to the left America is the "bad guy" who sold Saddam weapons....

Keith

[Keith]

And since when is Condoleezza Rice "nosing around for a democratic party nomination"?

Are you suggesting Condaleeza Rice stated that Saddam was linked to 9/11? Please provide the exact quote...

I'm waiting...

Keith

[SkunkApe]

I already did. Can't you read? Or didn't you take logic?

I'll educate you:

If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

The Bush White House played it like this:

If 9/11= Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda=Iraq, then 9/11 = Iraq

I'm sorry that Bush isn't so politically stupid as to make a bold-faced lie so plain that he has no room to maneuver out of it.

I'm done wasting my time.

[Iain]

On September13, 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with President Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason other than a “gut feeling” Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, and there was a debate “about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter terrorist strategy.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LEO306A.html

[Thumper]

for no apparent reason other than a “gut feeling” Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks

Exactly.

We've had the right, if not the obligation, to start where we left off in '91 since the very first violation.

We left Saddam in power after Desert Storm because of an AGREEMENT.

Agreement was broken many times over...

Was it a forced agreement? Sure...All bets were off when he sent the first troops over the Kuwaiti border.

Either way, it's a done deal.

What are your goals Skunkie? Would you like a complete withdrawal of troops now?

[Keith]

I already did. Can't you read? Or didn't you take logic?

Logic dictates that Saddam was indeed linked to Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism. It's no secret after all - he bragged about his funding and support of terrorism!
However, no US government figure has claimed that Saddam knew anything about 9/11 or had any direct causal relationship to that attack. They've only stated that he had a role as a provider of funding and training - something that Saddam himself was fond of bragging about...

I've asked you and St. Johns to provide a quote from a government figure to the contrary and you've been unable to do that.

I must conclude that you've been duped by the democrats and the Arab media.

Keith

[LawDog]

Insults, knee-biting, behavior more typical of honyocks than civilized people.

Lights out.

LawDog