.jpg)
There was quite a bit of stirring this week when a New York Times / CBS News Poll revealed that one in three Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. I thought that time was clouding everyone's memory. When I finally found the actual report (click to enlarge), I was surprised to learn that this misconception used to be worse!
33 comments:
Why haven't you posted about how TCU got educated last night? They blew a 14 point lead in the 4th quarter. Too much choreographed male dancing and not enough tackling.
How do you know, or have direct knowledge of, this being a misconception?
Is it absolutely impossible for it to be true? Although there may be no proof that he was directly involved, there is no proof to the contrary either.
What did Hilary say?
Thats good news. The percentage of Americans with shit for brains has dropped from 51% in 2002 to 33% in 2007. Probably due to all that illegal immigration though.
They must have hung a man that was not guilty?
But then remember who's blog your reading! Barry is a liberal! And liberal's blame the Prez for everything.
Denney Crane, you're what's wrong with America...how dumb can you be? Osama Bin Laden, the master mind behind the attacks on September 11, 2001 had no connection to Saddam Hussein. That's what Bush, Cheney, Rove wanted you to believe...why don't you spend some time reading the 9/11 Commission report which clearly states this...instead of trying to argue.
Thank you George W. Bush. It's smells like 1984 in here. The Ministry Of Information.
Maybe Hillary could ask her chief fund raiser Yung Yuen "Norman" Hsu what he thinks.
You know, some people in this world just need killin'. Saddam Hussein was one of those people regardless of whether he was involved on 9/11. The man needed killin'!!! bin Laden needs killin', that North Korean guy needs killin', Slobodan Milosivic needed killin' and the list goes on and on!
1:30 - I think they hanged the man because he gassed a hundred thousand or so of his own people a while back. Bush Sr. didn't really care about bringing this man to justice back during the first gulf war; good thing we now have GW to make things right.
denney crane, how does it feel to be one of the mis-informed, gullible, mindless, unthinking, near-brain-dead jackasses making up that 33%?
Do you also still believe that the world is flat? That the earth is 10,000 years old? That our planet is the center of the universe? That the moon is made out of cheese?
If George Bush went on the magic teevee box and told you that the Iranian government is supporting the Iraqi insurgency through donations made by billionaire gay hippie communist marijuana farmers in San Francisco, would you believe him?
Is it your goal in life to prove to everyone you meet or communicate with that you have elected never to use whatever small amount of intellect God gave you? Do you see it as good and honorable and patriotic to go around proving that you have only decaying excrement where your brains ought to be?
Is it against your religion to do even a small amount of independent research? Do facts and logic cause you physical pain?
Do you take pride in your ignorance and stupidity?
You are a disgusting excuse for a human being. Not because of your political opinions (which I'm guessing are disgusting in their own way), but for your complete lack of any individual thought.
2:52:
i'm sure you are right that some people just need killing. like those A-rabs over there in the desert with towels on their heads. they crashed planes into our buildings!
they need killing. and while we're at it, all those slanty-eyed asian folks, they bombed pearl harbor!!! i still don't understand why we've killed so few of them over the years since then.
hell, we even let them chinamen and A-rabs walk around our streets HERE in America (this is due to the clintons). and take jobs from hard working REAL Americans. if we're going to start killing folks, i say we start with those ones right here in our own country.
denney crane: we cannot prove or disprove the involvement of most the leaders in every country in the world, yet we have not ivaded them all.
gorilla & anon 2:52: The question is whether he was involved in 9/11, not whether he deserved to be hung. This administration has said he was and that's why we invaded Iraq. They have used a supposed connection between Iraq and 9/11 to justify this war.
There are a lot of bad leaders of countries around the world, but that doesn't justify us invading them and killing the leader.
M&M; The question is whether he was involved in 9/11 not should we have invaded Iraq. If I recall correctly we invaded Iraq based on the refusal to obide by UN rulings and the belief they possessed WMD's nto that they were involved in 9/11. I agree we did not find WMD's but that was the intellegence at the time. I await your senseless Brush bashing response.
Denney, welcome to the world of Liberal Punching Bag. Say something they don't like and they'll call you everything but a Christian.
I hate having to repeat these things again (see previous political posts,) but since the lies continue, here we go:
M&M - 1) Invasion is not necessary for every situation. Diplomacy, which Geo W Bush used with Iraq for 18 months before the war, sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. 2) The Bush administration has never said that the Iraq government was directly responsible for 9/11. Ever. The reasons given many, many times for the war were WMD (which the entire world believed he had,} Iraq's support of terrorism (proven,) and Saddam's barbaric abuse of his people (very proven.)
gorilla - Bush 41 (not really a "Sr") stopped short of invading Iraq, and bringing Saddam to justice,so as to accommodate the UN -- just what all of the current Bush-haters say Bush 43 should have done. In retrospect, it was a mistake. With American forces in Iraq during the 90's, perhaps Islamic terrorists' attention would have been diverted there, away from plotting terrorist attacks on NY and DC. It seems to be the fact for the last six years. As it was, the lack of American response to repeated attacks emboldened the terrorists.
"anon" 1:36 - At the very least, the 9/11 Commission's conclusions are suspect. One of its commissioners, Jamier Gorelick, was, when she served as Bill Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, largely responsible for the "wall" that effectively prevented government agencies from cooperating in fighting terrorism. She should have been testifying on the other side of the bench.
Denney, if it's any consolation, the louder and more acerbic the insults directed at you, the better the job that you're doing.
Anon 5:18 & wordkyle: So, If it was for the UN violations etc. (which I agree they did violate), who authorized us (the US) to be the UN enforcers? Why did we take it upon ourselves to invade for UN reasons? The wmd issue I understand and we know Iraq has had them at one time or another, but there are other bad, unstable countries that have wmd's including nuclear or developing nuclear and what are we doing there? Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, China and now Syria. Are we involved in diplomatic talks to stop this and if they don't cough them up we're going to attack and invade them like we did Iraq? Come on, let's be consistent here in our foreign policy.
The truth remains that some people just need killin' whether or not they had anything to do w/ 9/11. Sounds harsh but makes sense. Hangin' was too good for Saddam. Firin' squad woulda been better...
Wordbile, please allow some simple observations of your rewriting of history:
1. The entire (or most of the) world was convinced of Iraq’s WMDs only because the Clinton and Bush administrations cherry-picked the intelligence and only shared that which supported their current position. (Please recall that the UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of WMD activity.) Many intelligence analysts disagreed with the administration but were suppressed – through the 90’s and up to the commencement of war. Bush et al may not have identified Saddam with 9/11 BUT they encouraged the masses to believe that falsehood – note the results of the polls. Everyone knows Saddam was a very bad guy, but that alone does not justify that other countries should invade.
2. Whether or not Iraq would have been “pacified” after the first Gulf War is a question we’ll never know. It is very clear that Bush I’s Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney, clearly understood the possible problems of going into Iraq and eliminating Saddam. Cheney just got more stupid in his later years. Had Iraq been relieved of Saddam, there is absolutely no indication that the events of 9/11 could have been avoided.
3. You’re really grasping at straws criticizing the 9/11 Commission based upon a single member’s activity as a former Deputy Attorney General. The Commission’s report stands quite clear in it’s conclusion that Iraq (and Saddam) had nothing to do with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
If it’s of any interest to either Denny or wordbile, their historical revisionism will NOT cause intelligent observers to come to the conclusion that the entire Iraq attack and subsequent quagmire were entirely avoidable. Iraq was a war of choice while the attack on Afghanistan was justified. Unfortunately, Bush got his priorities wrong and we still haven’t gotten the mastermind of the 9/11 attack and have dug ourselves a massive hole in the Iraqi desert.
Under the cover of "anon," 9:29 bravely spoke out.
1) UN inspectors were blocked, barred and deceived throughout the 90's as they tried to conduct inspections. Iraqi biologist Rihab Taha admitted research on growing botulism, anthrax and smallpox, among other pleasantries. Remember, the burden of proof was on Iraq to indicate destruction of WMDs...yet they acted belligerently uncooperative. For four years, Iraq was not inspected. British intelligence indicated that Iraq could crank up nuclear weapons within months with outside help. The Oil-for-Food debacle proved how corrupt UN officials were, and that at the least Russia, Germany, and France provided assistance to Iraq outside of UN guidelines.
In January 2003, UN Inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm" and that some materials had not been accounted for.
All in all, believing in 2003 that Iraq had WMD was a very prudent course.
2) While no one can say for sure "what if" the US had gone into Iraq in '91, or what the effect would have been on terrorism (or if 9/11 would have been avoided,) we DO know for certain that what we did led to the attacks. Also, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been no more Islamic terrorist attacks in America. Compare the results of the two different courses of action.
3) The 9/11 Commission had as a member someone who was a major player in the circumstances regarding the breakdown in communication between intelligence and law enforcement. In the days before 9/11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Islamic terrorists involved with the attacks.
I have never (nor has the Bush administration) claimed that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. What I did say was that, at a minimum, the credibility of the 9/11 Commission is suspect. The fact that the "Able Danger" program (which may have had the identities of 9/11 terrorists a year before the attacks) was disregarded is a crime in itself.
As for "historical revisionism," you shouldn't use big words that you don't know the meaning of.
At first Democrats said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam.
Then Liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid.
Then Liberals said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security." In other words, there could be no political solution without a military solution. The elections became a purple-fingered success.
Now the surge is working, and the Democrats say there can be no military solution without a political solution.
With the huge number of successes in Iraq, both political and military, the Democrats continue to redefine what constitutes good news.
For at least ten years, good news for America has been bad news for Democrats, and bad news for America has been good news for Democrats.
Liberal Democrats may not be against America, but it's difficult to see how their actions would be much different if they were.
BlahblahblahBlahblahblahBlahblahblahBlahblahblahBlahblahblahBlahblahblahBlahblahblahBlahblahblah.
OMG how boring are you 9:29? You must give your family, friends, spouse and dog extreme tired head if you talk the same way you write. I read your post and felt like stapling my head to the carpet. Simple observations? Keep them to yourself and lighten up. In the immortal words of Ron White (how appropriate for a Wise County blog) "The next time you have a thought... let it go..." Adieu!!
wordbile loves to pose false premises then draw his false conclusions. For example:
1. Democrats said war was a failure because Saddam wasn't captures. What Democrats is he babbling about? In fact it was the Bushies who said capturing Saddam would matter - but it hasn't. Killing al-Zarqawi would matter – but it hasn’t. You can't prove a negative. Because there have been no attacks on the US can be for any number of reasons. Maybe they just don't find it productive at this time. However, there certainly have been attacks in several other countries.
3. The 9/11 commission had numerous members. The presence or absence of any few certainly doesn't discredit the entire body of their work. There were legal restraints between intelligence agencies. These laws were written by Congress. Were they over-restrictive? Maybe. But you can't dismiss the Commission's conclusions because of a singe member’s participation.
Then trotting out empty claims like “Able Danger” which your Republican congress could find no substance for. Then quote some single “scientist” who made claims of all the bad stuff Iraq was doing – with no verifiable information since.
You just keep making claims of “fact” without substance. You make false posits then draw unfounded conclusions. My head just gets tired. Fortunately, the rest of the country is waking up. The November ’08 elections should be a welcome change from the past 8 years.
It's very tiresome dealing with the Bush administration apologists. Please observe that most of the country has finally seen through the smoke are realize this was an ill-conceived war with no real objective or exit strategy. Then it was poorly executed. Now it drags on with ever changing goals while our troops are separated from their families and are dying for a most questionable objective (and just what our objective in Iraq today?).
Why don't you folks who just KNOW how things REALLY are, run for public office and just FIX things! Your blabbering is simply more of the problem. If you're all so bloomin' SMART, then RUN FOR OFFICE! I'm sure once you open your mouth with your FIRST campaign speech, everyone will marvel at your superintellect and will all bow down because we have soooooooo LONGED for someone just like you to finally come along and FIX IT ALL! Stop whining, whiners!
I'm dying a thousand deaths...
To the bravely anonymous 5:23 -
1) My statement, "believing in 2003 that Iraq had WMD was a very prudent course" still stands. The facts -- yes, facts -- that I gave support that stance.
2) We do, indeed, have no idea exactly why the terrorists have not attacked America in the last 6 years. However, during the 90's, attacks occurred every 18-24 months, culminating in 9/11. I would say that whatever the Clinton administration was doing, it did not discourage terrorist attacks. Compare the results.
3) Since a key person in the intelligence breakdowns was serving on the 9/11 Commission rather than testifying before it, and that the 9/11 Commission didn't even address the Able Danger program, there is no telling what other omissions, mistakes and misrepresentations were committed by this panel of politicians and bureaucrats.
Anyone who could read a newspaper, listen to radio news, or watch television for the last six years know that the Democrats have, for political reasons, downplayed every success -- EVERY success -- in Iraq. Baghdad captured, Uday & Qusay killed, Saddam captured, elections held, Zarqawi killed...Democrats said "yeah, but." Remember the deck of cards of Iraq's most wanted? All but ten confirmed captured or killed.
Bad news for America is good news for Democrats, while good news for America is bad news for Democrats.
To "anon" 8:07 - We each serve in the way we can. I do it by pointing out Liberal lies. When the Liberals quit lying, I'll quit posting.
Wordbile, your silliness continues…
1)Whether invading Iraq over possible WMDs was “prudent” is completely open to debate. Many other countries possess WMD and we don’t find it prudent to invade them (fortunately).
2)Let’s see, one terrorist attack in the US while Clinton was in office and at least one with Bush in office (I’m not even counting the still unsolved anthrax attacks). Meanwhile there have been several other attacks around the world. So does Bush get to take credit for deterring these, too?
3) Your silly claim that the entire 9/11 Commission report was bogus due to one of its members is ludicrous. The compartmentalizing of foreign and domestic intelligence had long been law in America. And bringing up the long discredited and/or ignored "Able Danger" charade just demonstrates the desperation of your argument.
Then you point to all the great “successes” killing various leaders in Iraq but fail to recognize Iraq is still a violent mess anyway. 2 million Iraqis are internally displaced and over 2 million have escaped to other countries and are afraid to return. Water, oil and electric services still haven’t returned to pre-invasion production. And you call the Iraq mess a “success”? We all hope for a stable, safe Iraq. We just disagree on a means (and a justification) for providing it - your invented or distorted “facts” notwithstanding.
"anon" 10:10 -
You're trying to deflect the point. In 2003, it was prudent to suppose Iraq had WMD which could, and probably would, be used against America. Iraq's behavior, along with intelligence sources and evidence, supported that conclusion in 2003. Diplomatic means to get Iraq in line had not worked. The height of irresponsibility would have been to disregard the evidence and allow terrorists to attack America again.
Speaking of which, regarding your comment about terrorist attacks -- you conveniently forget Clinton's non-response to the first WTC bombing (1993), Khobar Towers (1996), African embassy bombings (1998), USS Cole bombing (2000). Then there's Clinton's refusal to take bin Laden when he was offered up by Sudan. Not quite a pattern of protecting America. He was probably busy with other things.
Looking at the list of terrorist incidents here, it would appear that Islamic terrorists are choosing non-American targets for the last several years.
You also misstate my position on Iraq. While I recognize that Iraq is a mess, what I pointed out was that Liberal Democrats refuse to acknowledge any successes at all in Iraq. Since the beginning, every bit of progress has been denounced by Democrats, while failures have become Democrat talking points and headline news.
Choose a topic, and if it's good news for America, Democrats hate it.
What kind of political party is it that says, almost word-for-word, the same things as our enemies?
4:07 PM
You did not answer either question...are you running for office or are you with MoveOn.Org?
I did notice you like to ask alot of questions, like a good little control freak...
5:23 PM
I am not a Bush apologist, but I don't apologize for supporting the Iraq invasion with the information I was given from leading members of both parties. You will find a way to place blame on Bush no matter what history decides.
Fact: our President has made some enormous errors!
Opinion: quitting will only allow terrorism to flourish and multiply both here and abroad.
Another question: Does the Middle East have enough money to mislead the American public with our own media and websites?
Wordkyle: You still don't answer two points in regards to the wmd's. Yes, we all know the intelligence said they had them and we know they did because they were inventoried at one time in the early 90's, but the question remains: Is that suspicion of them still having the wmd's enough reason to invade them? Other countries with unstable leaders have them or are developing them and logic would tell a common sense person that to be consistent in our foreign policy we should invade them also. Yet, we have not.
Second question that remains unaswered: Who authorized the US to be the UN enforcer? Yes, Sadam was playing games with the UN inspectors, but who gave the US the green light to invade because Saddam was playing games with the UN?
Wordbile, You continue to amaze. This whole thread began when Barry pointed out that there are still big numbers who think Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack. He was not. Iraq was not. Not a single 9/11 terrorist was from Iraq. So how do you jump to the conclusion that Saddam would supply those goons with anything? As goofy as Saddam was, he was very distrustful of al Qaeda and bin Laden.
As for Clinton's record on attacks in America (which is what you originally said) Bush and Clinton are tied – each suffered one. On foreign attacks, both suffered several. As for Sudan's offer of bin Laden – maybe - maybe not. Do you believe everything the Sudanese government says? By the way – what did your hero Reagan do after the bombing of the barracks in Lebanon? Answer: he invaded Granada and did nothing about Lebanon – except withdraw.
I’m waiting for examples of all the “successes” the Liberals refuse to acknowledge. Your definition of success must be very selective. Listen to a number of top generals on our "successes". General Pace is the latest to acknowledge far less than success. Liberals love their country, too. We support our constitution. We are determined to defend our country from foreign and domestic terrorists. We support a country of laws and expect our leaders – of all parties - to obey them. We need to regain our world position as the country that plays fair, supports its allies and opposes lawless activity – whether governmental or commercial. I know we agree on a lot of stuff – let’s get together on solving problems not creating even bigger ones.
M&M - Your questions are not about WMDs, they're about foreign policy. 1) WMD were not the only reason given; also Saddam's abuse of his people, and his support of terrorism. With intelligence indicating he had WMD, it's not a huge leap to imagine him supplying them to the terrorists. If another strike had happened and Bush had done nothing (as Clinton did,) I would have joined in the Bush-bashing myself. Bush tried months and months of diplomacy with Iraq to no avail. Saddam remained belligerent, secretive and uncooperative. Saddam rejected diplomacy.
2) If you believe that US security should be in the hands of the United Nations, then there is no argument that will dissuade you. I disagree with that notion, especially in light of the fact that half the UN Security Council was secretly providing support to Saddam Hussein, in violation of UN sanctions.
Brave "anon" 8:18 (at least M&M has the guts to post under an identity) - Neither I nor the Bush administration ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. He did, however, support terrorism. After the stunning success (for Islamic terrorists) of 9/11, it's not much of a leap to think others would try it.
I listed some of the attacks on American targets during the Clinton administration. Clinton's response was...nothing. Wiki's list of terrorist incidents which I linked earlier does not show American targets in the last several years, after Bush's response. Those are the facts.
As for Sudan, bin Laden and Clinton, you can read about it here or here or listen to Clinton admit it himself here. If that last link doesn't work, you can access it here. Research helps.
Since I listed a few of the successes several posts ago, I'll just advise you to re-read them. Democrats never acknowledged them though, just as you refuse to.
Your list of "what Liberals want" is admirable, but disingenuous. When the New York Times revealed details of a program to monitor terrorists' financial transactions, how did that protect the country?
Simply stated, I believe that the Liberal Democrats' notion of "protecting the country" will get us killed. I'm against that.
6:55 - Simply stated, bin Laden became a prominent individual with American support for his Taliban when fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Subsequently, bin Laden turned his attention to the US and other western nations involved in the Middle East. He was a suspicious individual but until he was identified as part of the embassy attacks and the Cole, he had not "committed the crime" against America. Since then he and his organization did become a threat - and continues to be a threat. This is pretty simple American justice; you're innocent until proven guilty. Then we take action. Do you really propose to judge BEFORE an event? Which criminal or dictator or nation should we take out next?
Saddam was a nasty dictator in Iraq. Since his failures in Iran and Kuwait, he was effectively contained. However, we invaded Iraq, killed Saddam and most of his prime supporters and wound up being occupiers in the giant mess we've created in Iraq.
Bin Laden - the perpetrator of 9/11 - remains at large 6 years after the attack. Our inability to catch/kill this guy for so long now makes his elimination near meaningless. Bush diverted his attention from the real target and has created the mess in Iraq while tolerating the continuing deterioration in Afghanistan.
Did Clinton move as quickly as he might have? Maybe not. Did Bush pick up on Clinton's warnings about bin Laden and follow up on Clinton's plan to attack bin Laden in Afghanistan in Dec 2000? Again, the answer is NO. Bin Laden is still free and Iraq is a mess. Bush has been in charge for nearly 7 years. Attempting to blame Clinton is a bit of a stretch.
Wordkyle: There are a lot of countries where the people are abused, mistreated and killed by the leadership and we do nothing. Darfur for example. You keep listing things that Iraq was doing as our reasons for invading and those same reasons are happening all over the world in various countries and we are not invading them. Mr. Greenspan came out this weekend and said the invasion of Iraq was because of oil, which had been said before by others. What you are saying in defending Bush doesn't make sense because if that's our foreign policy, we're not being very consistent.
I don't want the US security put in the hands of the UN and never stated such, but you are the one who talked about Iraq being uncooroperative with the UN inspectors in the 90's as a reason for us to invade as have many other folks in defending Bush. They mention the many UN resolutions that Saddam violated etc.
Look I was a Bush supporter and voted for him twice, but from the conservative platform he has been a disaster and complete disappointment. The only way he has even acted at all conservative is by lowering taxes. But in every other way he has acted liberal and the congress as well and that is why they are not in control of congress anymore.
It appears that m&m has become another conserative who can see thru the Bush fog. Bush chose the war in Iraq. He did cut taxes, but then vastly overspent due to the war and other programs. Conservatives are dissilusioned. Liberals are abhorrant. And non-political citizens are really irritated. And bin Laden remains free.
4:16 PM
Well put... except for 1 small thing... bin Laden is far from free... he's hiding in a cave or worse...for the rest of his unnatural life...
Post a Comment