#Poll shows support for war is a mile wide and an inch deep
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2480803,00.html
Friday March 14, 2003 10:30 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - While President Bush has substantial voter support
for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein, Americans are so worried about
problems war could bring that Bush's support - and the nation's
political balance - could easily shift, a bipartisan poll finds.
Those sharply mixed feelings suggest that war and its effect on
international relations, terrorism and the economy pose considerable
political risks for the president, said two political pollsters who
conducted the survey for the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.
``The president has inspired a great deal of confidence about himself
and one of the consequences is that there are very high expectations
for the conduct of the war,'' said Democratic pollster Jeremy Rosner.
Republican pollster Bill McInturff said the poll clearly demonstrates
``how narrow the window could be for the definition of what goes well
in Iraq and how many things could go wrong that could very quickly
shift public opinion.'' If the war goes smoothly, he said, Democrats
could face a significant hurdle in the 2004 elections.
Besides the White House, Republicans currently control both the Senate
and the House of Representatives.
The poll found that about half of adults, 47 percent, say they support
military action to remove Saddam from power and disarm Iraq, even
without the full support of the United Nations Security Council.
Almost four in 10, 37 percent, said this country should do that only
with full support of the Security Council and 13 percent said the
United States should not take military action even if the Security
Council agreed.
The poll also suggested widespread concerns about what would make a
war against Iraq successful or unsuccessful.
The public said it would consider the war a success if Iraq is
disarmed and Saddam removed, even if more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers are
killed and even if thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed.
But a majority said they would not consider the war a success in the
following circumstances: if the war costs more than $100 billion, if
Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops, if Iraq
returns to dictatorship after the war, if there are more terrorist
attacks on the United States, and if Israel is attacked and the
Mideast becomes more unstable.
By a 2-1 margin, Americans said the United States needs to preserve
the American tradition of not launching attacks on other countries
unless it is attacked, rather than taking military action against
countries before they can threaten or strike this country.
``Given the amount of emphasis the administration has placed on this
(pre-emptive attack) rationale, this is really quite stunning,'' said
Democrat Rosner.
The poll showed significant gender differences, with women more likely
than men to say they feel threatened, and more women saying they are
cautious about going to war without support of the United Nations.
Eight in 10 of the entire sample said it's important to be liked and
respected abroad, but a majority, 55 percent, said they feel that the
United States is less liked and respected by people in other countries
than a year ago.
The poll of 1,005 registered voters was taken between March 3-8 and
has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The poll was
conducted by the Democratic polling firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner
Research and the Republican firm of Public Opinion Strategies.
GOP pollster McInturff said the results of the poll, along with
several focus groups held around the country, have convinced him that
people are very torn about what to do about Iraq, no matter which side
they are on.
``Are we safer because we initiate military action in Iraq,'' he
asked, ``or does that simply unleash a response that makes this
country more vulnerable?''
Americans, he said, ``don't know the answer to that question.''
**********************
"If the voters are given a choice between a Democrat who acts like a
Republican
and a Republican they will choose the real thing and vote for the
Republican!!!!"
Harry S. Truman
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Foxtrot
>Poll: Bush Has Substantial Support in War
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2480803,00.html
>The poll found that about half of adults, 47 percent, say they support
>military action to remove Saddam from power and disarm Iraq, even
>without the full support of the United Nations Security Council.
The New York Times/CBS News poll says 55% support
war without UN approval. The Guardian is heavily anti-
Bush, so I suspect they report the 47% number because
it was the most unflattering poll to Bush that they could find.
With either number, about half of Americans feel that the
UN has no business telling us what to do with our military
affairs. That's a good sign to me, it shows that sovereignty
is still somewhat important to Americans.
>Eight in 10 of the entire sample said it's important to be liked and
>respected abroad,
But not at the expense of national security!
>but a majority, 55 percent, said they feel that the
>United States is less liked and respected by people in other countries
>than a year ago.
No big deal. Other countries weren't attacked on 9/11, so
they're in no position to judge us.
>``Are we safer because we initiate military action in Iraq,'' he
>asked, ``or does that simply unleash a response that makes this
>country more vulnerable?''
More vulnerable?!? Are they forgetting about 9/11? Our
enemies in the region don't need an excuse (like removing
Hussein) to attack us.
Weasel in the Bush
>"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
>
>>Poll: Bush Has Substantial Support in War
>>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2480803,00.html
>
>>The poll found that about half of adults, 47 percent, say they support
>>military action to remove Saddam from power and disarm Iraq, even
>>without the full support of the United Nations Security Council.
>
>The New York Times/CBS News poll says 55% support
>war without UN approval. The Guardian is heavily anti-
>Bush, so I suspect they report the 47% number because
>it was the most unflattering poll to Bush that they could find.
Or just a few days out of date. And of course, the main point is how
shallow that support is. Remember we're in a country of morons who
believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
>
>With either number, about half of Americans feel that the
>UN has no business telling us what to do with our military
>affairs. That's a good sign to me, it shows that sovereignty
>is still somewhat important to Americans.
>
It was important to Nazi Germany, too. That didn't make it a good
thing.
And if we are so impressed with sovereignty, then what the fuck are we
doing engaging on unprovoked attacks on other sovereign nations?
>>Eight in 10 of the entire sample said it's important to be liked and
>>respected abroad,
>But not at the expense of national security!
But at the expense of honor and decency, right?
>>but a majority, 55 percent, said they feel that the
>>United States is less liked and respected by people in other countries
>>than a year ago.
>
>No big deal. Other countries weren't attacked on 9/11, so
>they're in no position to judge us.
>
>>``Are we safer because we initiate military action in Iraq,'' he
>>asked, ``or does that simply unleash a response that makes this
>>country more vulnerable?''
>
>More vulnerable?!? Are they forgetting about 9/11? Our
>enemies in the region don't need an excuse (like removing
>Hussein) to attack us.
*****************
"I am Howard Dean. And I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>The New York Times/CBS News poll says 55% support
>>war without UN approval. The Guardian is heavily anti-
>>Bush, so I suspect they report the 47% number because
>>it was the most unflattering poll to Bush that they could find.
>
>Or just a few days out of date. And of course, the main point is how
>shallow that support is. Remember we're in a country of morons who
>believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
Hussein and OBL are allies of convenience, Schlepp.
They have a common enemy--us. They aren't inseparable
blood brothers that act as one, but they're linked.
>>With either number, about half of Americans feel that the
>>UN has no business telling us what to do with our military
>>affairs. That's a good sign to me, it shows that sovereignty
>>is still somewhat important to Americans.
>>
>It was important to Nazi Germany, too. That didn't make it a good
>thing.
Yawn. Godwin's Law.
>And if we are so impressed with sovereignty, then what the fuck are we
>doing engaging on unprovoked attacks on other sovereign nations?
They provoked us when they violated the 1991 cease-fire
agreement. Forgetting that Iraq lost a war, and surrendered
to us?
>>>Eight in 10 of the entire sample said it's important to be liked and
>>>respected abroad,
>
>>But not at the expense of national security!
>
>But at the expense of honor and decency, right?
Honor and decency come from within your soul. They
don't come from being liked by others, you superficial
boob! LOL
Weasel in the Bush
>Weasel in the Bush <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>>The New York Times/CBS News poll says 55% support
>>>war without UN approval. The Guardian is heavily anti-
>>>Bush, so I suspect they report the 47% number because
>>>it was the most unflattering poll to Bush that they could find.
>>
>>Or just a few days out of date. And of course, the main point is how
>>shallow that support is. Remember we're in a country of morons who
>>believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
>
>Hussein and OBL are allies of convenience, Schlepp.
Odd, but CIA, Mossad, and just about every other intelligence agency
in the West, plus the State Department, all disagree with you.
>They have a common enemy--us. They aren't inseparable
>blood brothers that act as one, but they're linked.
Your enemies are everywhere and legion. They hate you because you are
so superior.
You know, they lock people up for thinking like that.
>>>With either number, about half of Americans feel that the
>>>UN has no business telling us what to do with our military
>>>affairs. That's a good sign to me, it shows that sovereignty
>>>is still somewhat important to Americans.
>>>
>>It was important to Nazi Germany, too. That didn't make it a good
>>thing.
>
>Yawn. Godwin's Law.
>
Run away. You can't refute that your notions about sovereignty can be
abused, though.
>>And if we are so impressed with sovereignty, then what the fuck are we
>>doing engaging on unprovoked attacks on other sovereign nations?
>
>They provoked us when they violated the 1991 cease-fire
>agreement. Forgetting that Iraq lost a war, and surrendered
>to us?
>
>>>>Eight in 10 of the entire sample said it's important to be liked and
>>>>respected abroad,
>>
>>>But not at the expense of national security!
>>
>>But at the expense of honor and decency, right?
>
>Honor and decency come from within your soul. They
>don't come from being liked by others, you superficial
>boob! LOL
*****************
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>Hussein and OBL are allies of convenience, Schlepp.
>
>Odd, but CIA, Mossad, and just about every other intelligence agency
>in the West, plus the State Department, all disagree with you.
AFAIK none of those organizations claim there's absolutely
no link between Hussein and al Qaeda whatsoever. What
is not agreed upon is exactly how much they're linked. We
know about various high level meetings between the two
organizations, and other things, such as how Hussein pays
the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25K each,
and other links described by Iraqi defectors.
Plus there are reasons unrelated to al Qaeda why Hussein
must be crushed. He's a threat to our allies and our interests
in the region, and he has shown a past propensity to attack
his neighbors. And he violated the 1991 cease fire agreement.
As the Romans said, thumbs down--he's gotta go!
>>They have a common enemy--us. They aren't inseparable
>>blood brothers that act as one, but they're linked.
>
>Your enemies are everywhere and legion. They hate you because you are
>so superior.
Huh? What's your point?
>>>It was important to Nazi Germany, too. That didn't make it a good
>>>thing.
>>
>>Yawn. Godwin's Law.
>>
>Run away. You can't refute that your notions about sovereignty can be
>abused, though.
Some day you'll figure out that your feeble attempts to
compare America to Nazi Germany turn people off, and
hurts your side of the argument. It trivializes the real
tragedies of Nazism.
Arne Langsetmo
> Poll: Bush Has Substantial Support in War
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2480803,00.html
>
> Friday March 14, 2003 10:30 PM
> The poll found that about half of adults, 47 percent, say they support
> military action to remove Saddam from power and disarm Iraq, even
> without the full support of the United Nations Security Council.
> Almost four in 10, 37 percent, said this country should do that only
> with full support of the Security Council and 13 percent said the
> United States should not take military action even if the Security
> Council agreed.
[snip]
> By a 2-1 margin, Americans said the United States needs to preserve
> the American tradition of not launching attacks on other countries
> unless it is attacked, rather than taking military action against
> countries before they can threaten or strike this country.
>
> "Given the amount of emphasis the administration has placed on this
> (pre-emptive attack) rationale, this is really quite stunning," said
> Democrat Rosner.
It's not stunning at all. Because of the deluge of Dubya
maladminstration disinformation and lies, and the complacency
of a lap-dog media, many Americans think that Saddam was
behind the Sept. 11th attacks, and 83% can't even correctly
answer how many of the Sept. 11th hijackers were from Iraq
(answer: None!).
When the people are working from false assumptions, it's
no wonder that they give support to attacking Iraq, while
disdaining "preemptive" attacks on other countries that
haven't attacked the U.S.
It's a _crime_ that the news media _knows_ this, yet
refuses to do anything to set matters right. It's
supposed to be their job to inform the public, and
when they refuse to do so when it is clear that such
is needed on such an important matter, they abdicate
their title and deserve the name "media whores". . . .
Time for them to step aside, and for the Internet to
take over.
http://www.mediwhoresonline.com
http://www.buzzflash.com
http://www.batrcop.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com
Oh, and BTW, it's time for the _Democrats_ to get their
act in gear and start working on this as well. There's
_no_ excuse for the profound ignorance in the U.S. on
foreign affairs (or for that matter on events in the
U.S.).
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
FauxPrez
}Poll: Bush Has Substantial Support in War
}
}http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2480803,00.html
}
}Friday March 14, 2003 10:30 PM
}The public said it would consider the war a success if Iraq is
}disarmed and Saddam removed, even if more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers are
}killed and even if thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed.
}
}But a majority said they would not consider the war a success in the
<snip>
So, Americans are more concerned with the financial cost of the
war than huge numbers of killed innocent Iraqi civilians.
Yeah, that fits the American character about right.
----
"President Bush says that he does not need approval from the U.N.
to wage war...and I'm thinking, "Well, hell, he really didn't
need the approval of the American voters to become president
either, did he?" - David Letterman
classicliberal2
>>> The New York Times/CBS News poll says
>>> 55% support war without UN approval. The
>>> Guardian is heavily anti-Bush, so I suspect
>>> they report the 47% number because it was
>>> the most unflattering poll to Bush that they
>>> could find.
>>
>> Or just a few days out of date. And of course,
>> the main point is how shallow that support is.
>> Remember we're in a country of morons who
>> believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
>
> Hussein and OBL are allies of convenience,
> Schlepp.
Hussein and OBL aren't "allies" of any kind
whatsoever.
> They have a common enemy--us. They aren't
> inseparable blood brothers that act as one, but
> they're linked.
They've been blood enemies from the beginning.
Bin Laden denounces Hussein as an atheist whose
only god is his government. When Iraq invaded
Kuwait, bin Laden offered to raise his holy warriors
to beat back Hussein's forces. In the recent tape
hailed by Bush thugs Powell and Fleischer as
proving a link between the two, bin Laden in fact
denouces Hussein as a "socialist" and an "infidel,"
and eplicitly forbids his followers from fighting for
the Baghdad regime. The "nightmare scenario"
that the "President" and his henchman have
repeatedly defecated upon America--the Sept. 11th
terrorists armed with an Iraqi nuke--is ludicrous in
every respect.
Weasel in the Bush
>Weasel in the Bush <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>>Hussein and OBL are allies of convenience, Schlepp.
>>
>>Odd, but CIA, Mossad, and just about every other intelligence agency
>>in the West, plus the State Department, all disagree with you.
>
>AFAIK none of those organizations claim there's absolutely
>no link between Hussein and al Qaeda whatsoever.
Try reading newspapers once in a while, chuckles. George Tenet, three
months ago, stood in front of Congress and specifically stated that
very thing. News items carried objections to the Putsch delusion from
the Mossad, MI-5 and others.
>What
>is not agreed upon is exactly how much they're linked.
They aren't linked. Period. You can search in vain for anyone making
that claim. Even Putsch stopped trying to make that claim. (Although
being the mealy-mouthed sack of shit that he is, he DID mention 9/11
eight times during that "press conference"--although never as the
direct involvement of Saddam. He just wanted to create an impression
for the weak minded and ignorant like yourself
We
>know about various high level meetings between the two
>organizations, and other things, such as how Hussein pays
>the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25K each,
>and other links described by Iraqi defectors.
>
>Plus there are reasons unrelated to al Qaeda why Hussein
>must be crushed. He's a threat to our allies and our interests
>in the region, and he has shown a past propensity to attack
>his neighbors. And he violated the 1991 cease fire agreement.
>As the Romans said, thumbs down--he's gotta go!
>
>>>They have a common enemy--us. They aren't inseparable
>>>blood brothers that act as one, but they're linked.
>>
>>Your enemies are everywhere and legion. They hate you because you are
>>so superior.
>
>Huh? What's your point?
>
>>>>It was important to Nazi Germany, too. That didn't make it a good
>>>>thing.
>>>
>>>Yawn. Godwin's Law.
>>>
>>Run away. You can't refute that your notions about sovereignty can be
>>abused, though.
>
>Some day you'll figure out that your feeble attempts to
>compare America to Nazi Germany turn people off, and
>hurts your side of the argument. It trivializes the real
>tragedies of Nazism.
*****************
Christopher Morton
--
"If she's elected, I'll make a point of putting "D-Israel" after her
name." - Brian Zepp Jamieson referring to Black liberal Democrat, Denise Majette.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>Weasel in the Bush <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>Odd, but CIA, Mossad, and just about every other intelligence agency
>>>in the West, plus the State Department, all disagree with you.
>>
>>AFAIK none of those organizations claim there's absolutely
>>no link between Hussein and al Qaeda whatsoever.
>
>Try reading newspapers once in a while, chuckles. George Tenet, three
>months ago, stood in front of Congress and specifically stated that
>very thing.
Got a link? I remember him saying that Hussein wasn't an
immediate threat to US targets, but only because he isn't
believed to currently have capable delivery systems for his
weapons.
>News items carried objections to the Putsch delusion from
>the Mossad, MI-5 and others.
They positively denied any possible connection between
Hussein and OBL, eh? Let me guess what your source is,
WSWS? DNC? democraticunderground.com?
Looking through my recent outbox, I see a New York Times
article you posted about a month ago where OBL urged
Muslims to use suicide missions to protect Iraq. Here's the
article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/11cnd-terror.html
OBL is willing to sacrifice his Muslim brethren (but not himself,
of course) to protect Hussein. Absolutely no link between
them, eh?
>>What
>>is not agreed upon is exactly how much they're linked.
>
>They aren't linked. Period. You can search in vain for anyone making
>that claim. Even Putsch stopped trying to make that claim. (Although
>being the mealy-mouthed sack of shit that he is, he DID mention 9/11
>eight times during that "press conference"--although never as the
>direct involvement of Saddam. He just wanted to create an impression
>for the weak minded and ignorant like yourself
You just don't get it. Nobody that I know of claims that
Hussein was directly involved in the execution of the 9/11
attack, that's not the point.
9/11 changed the way we're going to protect our nation.
We're not going to sit around with our thumbs up our butts
and wait to be attacked. We're adapting a more preemptive
form of national defense. Get it?
classicliberal2
>> News items carried objections to the Putsch delusion
>> from the Mossad, MI-5 and others.
>
> They positively denied any possible connection between
> Hussein and OBL, eh?
Yes.
> Let me guess what your source is,
> WSWS? DNC? democraticunderground.com?
There's a fuller discussion which goes into some of this
here:
http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/030305.html
No cutesy remarks about the source--more than half a
dozen different sources are referenced in the article,
and you can look them up yourself.
> Looking through my recent outbox, I see a New
> York Times article you posted about a month ago
> where OBL urged Muslims to use suicide missions
> to protect Iraq. Here's the article.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/11cnd-terror.html
>
> OBL is willing to sacrifice his Muslim brethren (but
> not himself, of course) to protect Hussein.
> Absolutely no link between them, eh?
A perfect example of why it's a good idea to look
into these things a bit more closely--the corporate
press has been a virtual solid wall of Bush pro-war
propaganda for seven months now. The transcript
of the OBL tape in question is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm
Far from calling on his followers to "protect Hussein,"
OBL calls Hussein an "infidel" and a "soclialist"
and, while he says fighting the U.S. if it invades
Iraq is allowed, he explicitly forbids his followers
from fighting for the Iraqi government:
"...we would like to stress a number of important
values:
"First, showing good intentions. This means fighting
should be for the sake of the one God.
"It should not be for championing ethnic groups, or
for championing the non-Islamic regimes in all Arab
countries, including Iraq."
And later:
"Fighting in support of the non-Islamic banners is
forbidden."
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>> Let me guess what your source is,
>> WSWS? DNC? democraticunderground.com?
>
>There's a fuller discussion which goes into some of this
>here:
>http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/030305.html
>No cutesy remarks about the source--more than half a
>dozen different sources are referenced in the article,
>and you can look them up yourself.
Yawn. Isolated opinions, like some French guy tells the
LA Times that al Qaeda and Hussein are't connected
(those French pansies sure know about military strength,
eh? LOL). Some author plugging a book on MSNBC said
the same thing. And an *anonymous* senior intelligence
official told ABC News something similar. Big whoopee
do.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/11cnd-terror.html
>>
>> OBL is willing to sacrifice his Muslim brethren (but
>> not himself, of course) to protect Hussein.
>> Absolutely no link between them, eh?
>
>A perfect example of why it's a good idea to look
>into these things a bit more closely--the corporate
>press has been a virtual solid wall of Bush pro-war
>propaganda for seven months now. The transcript
>of the OBL tape in question is here:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm
>Far from calling on his followers to "protect Hussein,"
>OBL calls Hussein an "infidel" and a "soclialist"
Yes, the Times article explains that OBL calls Hussein
an infidel and disapproves of his secular government.
But it clearly says that he feels an attack against Hussein
would be an assault on all Muslims.
Hussein may *claim* he's not linked to OBL, but OBL
obviously feels linked to Hussein. The link may be
greater in one direction than the other, but regardless,
it's absurd to claim that there's no link whatsoever
between the two men.
Weasel in the Bush
>classicliberal2 <classic...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>> Let me guess what your source is,
>>> WSWS? DNC? democraticunderground.com?
>>
>>There's a fuller discussion which goes into some of this
>>here:
>>http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/030305.html
>>No cutesy remarks about the source--more than half a
>>dozen different sources are referenced in the article,
>>and you can look them up yourself.
>
>Yawn. Isolated opinions, like some French guy tells the
>LA Times that al Qaeda and Hussein are't connected
>(those French pansies sure know about military strength,
>eh? LOL). Some author plugging a book on MSNBC said
>the same thing. And an *anonymous* senior intelligence
>official told ABC News something similar. Big whoopee
>do.
Let's see: George Tenet said so to Congress about three months ago.
Does that count? The Mossad, not exactly FRIENDLY to Saddam, agree he
had nothing to do with 9/11. So does MI-5. So does the FBI. Even
Putsch doesn't try to make that claim.
>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/11cnd-terror.html
>>>
>>> OBL is willing to sacrifice his Muslim brethren (but
>>> not himself, of course) to protect Hussein.
>>> Absolutely no link between them, eh?
>>
>>A perfect example of why it's a good idea to look
>>into these things a bit more closely--the corporate
>>press has been a virtual solid wall of Bush pro-war
>>propaganda for seven months now. The transcript
>>of the OBL tape in question is here:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm
>>Far from calling on his followers to "protect Hussein,"
>>OBL calls Hussein an "infidel" and a "soclialist"
>
>Yes, the Times article explains that OBL calls Hussein
>an infidel and disapproves of his secular government.
>But it clearly says that he feels an attack against Hussein
>would be an assault on all Muslims.
>
>Hussein may *claim* he's not linked to OBL, but OBL
>obviously feels linked to Hussein. The link may be
>greater in one direction than the other, but regardless,
>it's absurd to claim that there's no link whatsoever
>between the two men.
*****************
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>Yawn. Isolated opinions, like some French guy tells the
>>LA Times that al Qaeda and Hussein are't connected
>>(those French pansies sure know about military strength,
>>eh? LOL). Some author plugging a book on MSNBC said
>>the same thing. And an *anonymous* senior intelligence
>>official told ABC News something similar. Big whoopee
>>do.
>
>Let's see: George Tenet said so to Congress about three months ago.
>Does that count?
Still waiting for a link.
>The Mossad, not exactly FRIENDLY to Saddam, agree he
>had nothing to do with 9/11. So does MI-5. So does the FBI. Even
>Putsch doesn't try to make that claim.
Who claimed Hussein was directly responsible for the
9/11 attack?
Arne Langsetmo
> Weasel in the Bush <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >But at the expense of honor and decency, right?
>
> Honor and decency come from within your soul. They
> don't come from being liked by others, you superficial
> boob! LOL
When 3 out of 4 people think you're a dishonest,
arrogant thug, you might take a moment to do some
self-examination and think about whether _your_
ideas of "honour and decency" measure up. . . .
When everyone else hates you, chances are they do
have a point. But if you're a big enough boob to
think like FauxTwat here, you're unlikely to think
you could _possibly_ be wrong ... kind of like the
guy in the office with the really bad hygiene that
sees nothing wrong even though people keep making
these strange comments that keep seeming to hint
at something. . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
> Weasel in the Bush <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
> >>Hussein and OBL are allies of convenience, Schlepp.
> >
> >Odd, but CIA, Mossad, and just about every other intelligence agency
> >in the West, plus the State Department, all disagree with you.
>
> AFAIK none of those organizations claim there's absolutely
> no link between Hussein and al Qaeda whatsoever. What
> is not agreed upon is exactly how much they're linked. We
> know about various high level meetings between the two
Actually, _we_ don't. If _you_ do, I'd suggest titrating
the Haldol a bit. If there was any evidence of "various
high-level meetings between the two organizations", Dubya
and his cronies would be trumpeting it to the rafters.
But there just isn't.
> . . . and other things, such as how Hussein pays
> the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25K
> each, . . .
Yeah, and how much do our "friends" the Saudis pay?
But FWIW, Hamas and the PFLP are _not_ al Qaeda.
Speaking of the Saudis, they have probably given
far _more_ support to Osama and his bunch than
Saddam ever did (if at all).
> and other links described by Iraqi defectors.
The stuff that Iraqi defectors have given us has turned
out to be mostly tripe if not worse.
<http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Weapons_of_mass_deception>
One indication of the Administration's credulity regarding its
own propaganda is its reliance on information coming from the
Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC was created in the early
1990s with support from the Rendon Group. At the time, the first
Bush administration hoped that by sponsoring a political
opposition group, it might prompt Iraqi military leaders to
overthrow Saddam Hussein in a "zipless coup." This never happened,
but the INC remains active today. Its head, Ahmed Chalabi, openly
dreams that the United States will install him as the country's
next ruler.
Writing in the American Prospect, journalist Robert Dreyfuss
noted in December 2002 that the Bush administration prefers
the INC's analysis of conditions inside Iraq over the analysis
coming from scholars and even from intelligence agencies like
the CIA. "But most Iraq hands with long experience in dealing
with that country's tumultuous politics consider the INC's
intelligence-gathering abilities to be nearly nil," Dreyfuss
wrote. "The Pentagon's critics are appalled that intelligence
provided by the INC might shape U.S. decisions about going to
war against Baghdad. At the CIA and at the State Department,
Ahmed Chalabi, the INC's leader, is viewed as the ineffectual
head of a self-inflated and corrupt organization skilled at
lobbying and public relations, but not much else." [36]
Not to mention that much of the "humint" that the Dubya
maladministration seems tobe getting comes from such sources
(no wonder they don't want to disclose it), but when checked
up by the UNMOVIC people when the Dubya folks decide to actually
provide some of this "proof" to the inspectors as required
under UNSCR 1441, the inspectors have called it "garbage,
garbage, and more garbage" after raiding SCUD sites and
find nothing more than deadly loads of chickenshit, and
other such "intelligence" foulups. . . .
> Plus there are reasons unrelated to al Qaeda why Hussein
> must be crushed. . . .
Ahhhh, on to Plan B. Don't think we don't notice. But
the topic of conversation here was whether, as Dubya's
sworn up and down, Saddam and Osama are in bed together.
> . . . He's a threat to our allies . . .
Nope.
> . . . and our interests
> in the region, . . . .
"What's _our_ oil doing under _Saddam's_ sand? . . ."
You're probably too stoopid to cath the cinematic allusion.
> . . . and he has shown a past propensity to attack
> his neighbors. . . .
So to cure that, we'll show a present propensity to attack
someone who isn't even our neighbour.
> . . . And he violated the 1991 cease fire agreement.
How so?
> As the Romans said, thumbs down--he's gotta go!
So you admit that it ain't WoMD that's got Dubya's panties
all twisted?
> >>They have a common enemy--us. They aren't inseparable
> >>blood brothers that act as one, but they're linked.
> >
> >Your enemies are everywhere and legion. They hate you because you are
> >so superior.
>
> Huh? What's your point?
Zepp: I truly think he _is_ clueless. *sigh*
> >>>It was important to Nazi Germany, too. That didn't make it a good
> >>>thing.
> >>
> >>Yawn. Godwin's Law.
> >>
> >Run away. You can't refute that your notions about sovereignty can be
> >abused, though.
>
> Some day you'll figure out that your feeble attempts to
> compare America to Nazi Germany turn people off, and
> hurts your side of the argument. It trivializes the real
> tragedies of Nazism.
No. To mention that some of the "justifications" for Nazi
acts (or Soviet acts, or whoever) may be in fact quite
similar in some respects to those of the Dubya
maladministration is not to equate the two. In fact,
to _not_compare the U.S. and Nazi Germany would be a form
of wilful intellectual blindness. The U.S. can't be hurt
by the comparison; if it truly is different, that will
be obvious, and generally to the credit of the U.S.
But to ignore similarities is to ignore the very real
danger that we may be starting to act in a way that
we shouldn't, and may be heading in a direction that
does us no credit at all.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
classicliberal2
>>> Let me guess what your source is,
>>> WSWS? DNC? democraticunderground.com?
>>
>> There's a fuller discussion which goes into some
>> of this here:
>> http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/030305.html
>> No cutesy remarks about the source--more than
>> half a dozen different sources are referenced in
>> the article, and you can look them up yourself.
>
> Yawn. Isolated opinions,
Expert opinion across the spectrum on this matter
is virtually unanimous (as one of the articles you
ignored noted); the Bush regime is simply lying on
this point. In the face of this, it is incumbent upon
those who assert a connection to provide some
evidence to support that assertion.
> like some French guy tells the LA Times that al
> Qaeda and Hussein are't connected (those
> French pansies sure know about military strength,
> eh? LOL).
That "some French guy" is an investigator who has
been battling Islamic reactionaries for two decades--he
was busting these cells back when the Reagan
administration was financing them. At present, he tells
us, "we are working on 50 cases involving Al Qaeda
or radical Islamic cells. I think if there were such links,
we would have found them. But we have found no
serious connections whatsoever."
> Some author plugging a book on MSNBC said the
> same thing.
That "some author" was Peter Bergen, a journalist
who has covered Islamist reactionaries for a
decade, and is one of the very few Western
journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden.
He says "I see almost no connection [between al
Qaida and Iraq]. Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi
intelligence agent in '98 once. We all do meetings
with people we don't necessarily do business with.
Saddam Hussein is a secular fascist and Osama
bin Laden is an Islamic zealot."
> And an *anonymous* senior intelligence official told
> ABC News something similar. Big whoopee do.
That official told ABC News "that there is 'no smoking
gun--not even an unfired gun' when it comes to linking
Iraq with al Qaeda, even though intelligence officials
have been trying to find a strong connection between
Saddam and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden since
Sept. 11."
This dovetails with the other items you chose to
ignore, as well. For example:
"...the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence [tying
Hussein to global terrorism] despite having combed
its files and redoubled its efforts to collect and analyze
information related to Iraq, according to senior
intelligence officials and outside experts with
knowledge of discussions within the U.S.
government."
--Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2002)
A five-year veteran of the National Security Council
revealed that
"Like other [secular] Middle Eastern rulers, Saddam
Hussein has long recognized that Al Qaeda and
like-minded Islamists represent a threat to his regime.
Consequently, he has shown no interest in working
with them against their common enemy, the United
States. This was the understanding of American
intelligence in the 1990's. In 1998, the National
Security Council assigned staff to determine whether
that conclusion was justified. After reviewing all the
available intelligence that could have pointed to a
connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the group
found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship...
The claims of the national security adviser,
Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld that senior Qaeda officials have
been in Baghdad and that there is evidence of
cooperation on weapons of mass destruction
represent a dramatic departure from the record and,
as such, ought to be aired as comprehensively as
possible."
Then there's Bob Baer, formerly of the CIA. It's
unmentioned in the article, but Baer spent over
20 years working on the Middle East in the CIA's
Directorate of Operations. He told the Guardian
that "there were contacts between Osama bin
Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the
early 1990s and in 1998: 'But there is no evidence
that a strategic partnership came out of it. I'm
unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing
terrorism against the United States.'"
The BBC, similarly, acquired the official assessment
of the alleged "relationship" between Hussein and
al Qaida prepared by British intelligence--"There are
no current links between the Iraqi regime and the
al-Qaeda network..."
And, again, I restate that it is incumbent upon those
making the assertion of a connection in the face of
the known facts to provide some evidence of this.
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/11cnd-terror.html
>>>
>>> OBL is willing to sacrifice his Muslim brethren (but
>>> not himself, of course) to protect Hussein.
>>> Absolutely no link between them, eh?
>>
>> A perfect example of why it's a good idea to look
>> into these things a bit more closely--the corporate
>> press has been a virtual solid wall of Bush pro-war
>> propaganda for seven months now. The transcript
>> of the OBL tape in question is here:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm
>> Far from calling on his followers to "protect Hussein,"
>> OBL calls Hussein an "infidel" and a "soclialist"
>
> Yes, the Times article explains that OBL calls Hussein
> an infidel and disapproves of his secular government.
> But it clearly says that he feels an attack against
> Hussein would be an assault on all Muslims.
Nope. You're playing a rhetorical game of conflating an
attack on Iraq as an attack on Saddam Hussein. Bin
Laden plays a similar game, but from a different angle.
He suggests that Hussein is of little or no real importance
to the Americans, whom he calls "crusaders" whose real
target in this war is "the people of Islam." They're
preparing this war not to bumb off Saddam Hussein, but
"to occupy a former capital of Islam, loot Muslims' wealth,
and install an agent government":
"Needless to say, this crusade war is primarily targeted
against the people of Islam.
"Regardless of the removal or the survival of the
socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the
Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad
against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition
and weapons."
> Hussein may *claim* he's not linked to OBL, but OBL
> obviously feels linked to Hussein.
He calls Hussein a "socialist" and an "infidel" and forbids
his followers from fighting for Hussein's regime--they're
"linked" in the same way that Hussein and George Bush Jr.
are "linked." There simply aren't enough words in the
English language to allow you to spin this into an
interpretation that supports your comment above. They
are enemies, and there's about as much chance of
Hussein providing al Qaida forces with weaponry as there
is of him providing the Americans with same.
classicliberal2
wrote:
>> . . . and other things, such as how Hussein pays
>> the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25K
>> each, . . .
>
> Yeah, and how much do our "friends" the Saudis pay?
The individual payments by the Saudis are less, but they
spend much more money on this overall than the Iraqis.
The Saudi relief fund for victims of Israeli violence in the
occupied territories--which is the fund from which such
payments are made--was $33 million for the first 17
months of the present intifada. As of Dec. 2001, that
fund was increased to $50 million. The Iraqis have a
similar fund. The Israelis have documented that it is
$15 million, and have claimed it could be $25 million
fund. In any case, the Saudi fund is much larger.
It should be noted that this money is given to the
families of suicide bombers in response to the Israeli
tactic of "collective punishment"--destroying the
homes of the families of suicide bombers and of
suspected anti-Israeli operatives or sympathizers.
Given that this is a blatant war crime commited by
the Israeli government, it seems rather silly to make
much of a fuss over relief payments to the victims.
> But FWIW, Hamas and the PFLP are _not_ al
> Qaeda.
Nope.
> Speaking of the Saudis, they have probably given
> far _more_ support to Osama and his bunch than
> Saddam ever did (if at all).
No one has ever documented a single penny given to
al Qaida by Hussein. The Saudis, OTOH, have given
hundreds of millions of dollars to the organization, making
the kingdom the major source of its revenue. A report by
the Council on Foreign Relations last year said that "for
years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia
have been the most important source of funds for Al
Qaida." The UN, in January, reported that the Saudis
have given $500 million to al Qaida in the past decade.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>> http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/030305.html
>>> No cutesy remarks about the source--more than
>>> half a dozen different sources are referenced in
>>> the article, and you can look them up yourself.
>>
>> Yawn. Isolated opinions,
>
>Expert opinion across the spectrum on this matter
>is virtually unanimous (as one of the articles you
>ignored noted); the Bush regime
Referring to the Bush administration as a "regime" shows
you to be a bitter partisan who can't let go of the 2000
election.
>> like some French guy tells the LA Times that al
>> Qaeda and Hussein are't connected (those
>> French pansies sure know about military strength,
>> eh? LOL).
>
>That "some French guy" is an investigator who has
>been battling Islamic reactionaries for two decades--he
>was busting these cells back when the Reagan
>administration was financing them. At present, he tells
>us, "we are working on 50 cases involving Al Qaeda
>or radical Islamic cells. I think if there were such links,
>we would have found them. But we have found no
>serious connections whatsoever."
>
>> Some author plugging a book on MSNBC said the
>> same thing.
>
>That "some author" was Peter Bergen, a journalist
>who has covered Islamist reactionaries for a
>decade, and is one of the very few Western
>journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden.
>He says "I see almost no connection [between al
>Qaida and Iraq]. Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi
>intelligence agent in '98 once.
You're free to believe those talking heads who are making
the rounds in the media. I choose to believe Colin Powell,
who said to the UN:
We know members of both organizations [Iraqi intelligence
and al Qaeda] met repeatedly and have met at least eight
times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a
foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a
senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met
the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Your article says OBL met with Iraqi intelligence once,
Powell says twice. ANY meeting between them is too
many.
>> And an *anonymous* senior intelligence official told
>> ABC News something similar. Big whoopee do.
>
>That official told ABC News "that there is 'no smoking
>gun--not even an unfired gun' when it comes to linking
>Iraq with al Qaeda
Anonymous sources are worthless.
>"...the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence [tying
>Hussein to global terrorism] despite having combed
>its files and redoubled its efforts to collect and analyze
>information related to Iraq, according to senior
>intelligence officials and outside experts with
>knowledge of discussions within the U.S.
>government."
>--Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2002)
Yes, I saw that one, and took notice because the Post
is considerably more credible than other sources cited,
like the worthless UK Guardian. But all that's provided is
the date of the paper. I wondered if it came from an
editorial or an op-ed piece.
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/11cnd-terror.html
>> Yes, the Times article explains that OBL calls Hussein
>> an infidel and disapproves of his secular government.
>> But it clearly says that he feels an attack against
>> Hussein would be an assault on all Muslims.
>
>Nope. You're playing a rhetorical game of conflating an
>attack on Iraq as an attack on Saddam Hussein.
No, I am *not* playing any such game. As a matter of fact,
I pasted some of that sentence from the first paragraph of
the New York Times link I posted.
... [OBL declared] an American-led war against Saddam
Hussein's regime would be an assault on all Muslims.
>> Hussein may *claim* he's not linked to OBL, but OBL
>> obviously feels linked to Hussein.
>
>He calls Hussein a "socialist" and an "infidel" and forbids
>his followers from fighting for Hussein's regime--they're
>"linked" in the same way that Hussein and George Bush Jr.
>are "linked."
Yeah, he also urged Muslims to use suicide missions to
help Iraq. He contradicts himself. So what?
classicliberal2
>>>> http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/030305.html
>>>> No cutesy remarks about the source--more than
>>>> half a dozen different sources are referenced in
>>>> the article, and you can look them up yourself.
>>>
>>> Yawn. Isolated opinions,
>>
>> Expert opinion across the spectrum on this matter
>> is virtually unanimous (as one of the articles you
>> ignored noted); the Bush regime is simply lying on
>> this point.
>
> Referring to the Bush administration as a "regime"
> shows you to be a bitter partisan who can't let go
> of the 2000 election.
Like every human being in the United States with
any concern for democracy, I am disgusted by the
2000 election mess. That, however, has nothing
to do with what we're discussing. I am a partisan,
but I've never made any secret about it in all my
time posting here, so it's more than a little
disingenuous of you to suggest that it's some sort
of revelation.
To restore what you snipped:
> In the face of this, it is incumbent upon those who
> assert a connection to provide some evidence to
> support that assertion.
This partisan can certainly understand why someone
taking the position you have here would be sure to snip
that part.
>>> Some author plugging a book on MSNBC said the
>>> same thing.
>>
>> That "some author" was Peter Bergen, a journalist
>> who has covered Islamist reactionaries for a
>> decade, and is one of the very few Western
>> journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden.
>> He says "I see almost no connection [between al
>> Qaida and Iraq]. Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi
>> intelligence agent in '98 once.
>
> You're free to believe those talking heads who are
> making the rounds in the media.
...not only experts, but the ONLY experts being
referenced here.
> I choose to believe Colin Powell, who said to the
> UN:
>
> We know members of both organizations [Iraqi
> intelligence and al Qaeda] met repeatedly and
> have met at least eight times at very senior
> levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign
> security service tells us, that bin Laden met with
> a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum,
> and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence
> service.
>
> Your article says OBL met with Iraqi intelligence once,
> Powell says twice. ANY meeting between them is too
> many.
It's just as well, because if you follow your own principle,
stated below, you have no evidence of ANY meeting
between any of these people. To quote you, "Anonymous
sources are worthless." If that's true, they remain worthless
whether they are a "senior intelligence official" cited by
ABC News or "a foreign security service" referenced by
Powell.
In this case, Powell, unlike ABC News, not only has a
motive to lie but has, in fact, been shown to have lied
and to have presented misinformation at several points
in the presentation in question, including using, as a
source, a completely phony British intelligence dossier,
misrepresenting sattelite images, and, most damningly,
wholly fabricating lines of dialogue and inserting the
made-up lines into an alleged "translation" of what he
said was a telephone conversation between two Iraqi
military officials--done to make the conversation sound
more incriminating.
(There are more details on all of this here:
http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/030306.html )
>>> And an *anonymous* senior intelligence official told
>>> ABC News something similar. Big whoopee do.
>>
>> That official told ABC News "that there is 'no smoking
>> gun--not even an unfired gun' when it comes to linking
>> Iraq with al Qaeda
>
> Anonymous sources are worthless.
When the administration is leaning on the intelligence
and law enforcement community to fabricate evidence
(meaning speaking publicly could cost them their job),
they're priceless.
>> "...the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence [tying
>> Hussein to global terrorism] despite having combed
>> its files and redoubled its efforts to collect and analyze
>> information related to Iraq, according to senior
>> intelligence officials and outside experts with
>> knowledge of discussions within the U.S.
>> government."
>> --Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2002
>
> Yes, I saw that one, and took notice because the Post
> is considerably more credible than other sources cited,
> like the worthless UK Guardian.
Just to keep the record straight, the Guardian is not
used as a source anywhere in what I cited. The
Guardian quotes a former CIA official--they aren't the
source. (This official--Bob Baer--has said the same
thing to other news outlets, including 60 Minutes).
> But all that's provided is the date of the paper. I
> wondered if it came from an editorial or an op-ed
> piece.
A news article, front page.
Now, to restore the others you snipped:
>>>> OBL calls Hussein an "infidel" and a "soclialist"
>>>
>>> Yes, the Times article explains that OBL calls Hussein
>>> an infidel and disapproves of his secular government.
>>> But it clearly says that he feels an attack against
>>> Hussein would be an assault on all Muslims.
>>
>> Nope. You're playing a rhetorical game of conflating an
>> attack on Iraq as an attack on Saddam Hussein.
>
> No, I am *not* playing any such game. As a matter of fact,
> I pasted some of that sentence from the first paragraph of
> the New York Times link I posted.
>
> ... [OBL declared] an American-led war against Saddam
> Hussein's regime would be an assault on all Muslims.
...which is merely a game of conflating matters, as I've
already noted. OBL condemns Hussein's regime on that
tape and forbids his followers from fighting for it.
To restore the missing part, so that context isn't lost:
Bin Laden plays a similar game, but from a different angle.
He suggests that Hussein is of little or no real importance
to the Americans, whom he calls "crusaders" whose real
target in this war is "the people of Islam." They're
preparing this war not to bumb off Saddam Hussein, but
"to occupy a former capital of Islam, loot Muslims' wealth,
and install an agent government":
"Needless to say, this crusade war is primarily targeted
against the people of Islam.
"Regardless of the removal or the survival of the
socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the
Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad
against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition
and weapons."
>>> Hussein may *claim* he's not linked to OBL, but
>>> OBL obviously feels linked to Hussein.
>>
>> He calls Hussein a "socialist" and an "infidel" and
>> forbids his followers from fighting for Hussein's
>> regime--they're "linked" in the same way that
>> Hussein and George Bush Jr. are "linked."
>
> Yeah, he also urged Muslims to use suicide missions
> to help Iraq. He contradicts himself. So what?
He doesn't contradict himself. He is urging his followers
to fight the U.S. "crusaders," and explicitly forbidding
them to fight for Hussein or his regime. Only by playing
your game of conflating matters--fighting the
Americans=defending Hussein--can your conclusions
be justified.