[RenegadeRick]

Polls: More Than 4 in 10 Americans Still Think Saddam Involved in 9/11 Attacks
By E&P Staff
Published: September 07, 2006 11:55 AM ET

NEW YORK Five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, better than 4 in 10 Americans still believe that former Iraq leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in those attacks, according to two recent polls.

An Opinion Research Corporation on behalf of CNN released today on numerous issues surrounding the Iraq war, asked whether Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Fifty-two percent said he was not, but 43% said they believe he was.

This comes despite wide media debunking of this notion for years. At a news conference this past August 21, President Bush was asked if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and he said it had "nothing" to do with the attacks. Yet polls show that a majority of Republicans continue to state that Hussein was involved.

A Zogby poll released earlier this week found similar results, with 46% claiming that Iraq was connected to 9/11, again with 2 out of 3 (65%) of Republicans feeling this way.
The poll of 1,004 American adults for CNN was conducted Aug. 30 to Sept. 2. Zogby polled 1,014 from Sept. 1 to Sept. 5.

Did we really need another example of how stupid many Americans are?

It is kinda funny how most Republicans think Iraq was involved in 9-11, even though their fearless leader has clearly stated that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

What do you think N8?

 

[N8 v2.0]

I think you've got to be a total dumbass if you can't connect Saddam to middle eastern terrorism.

 

[valve bouncer]

See above for one of those 40%.

 

[$tinkle]

headline might as well have said "43% of americans are dumber than bush"

 

[JohnE]

Most ME terrorism is related to Radical Muslim males, between the ages of 17-35, Hussein belongs to neither group. While there is no doubt that he gave moral support to terrorists, and made lots of noise about kicking our asses, no one has ever proven that he was involved in any way in the 9/11 attacks. Read the 9/11 commission report. Hows the hunt for WMD going these days anyways? I hear OJ is going tohelp after he tracks down his ex wife killers...

 

[SofaKingBanned]

why does this poll result surprise you?

In order to know that Iraq wasn't involved, you'd have to actively read the news. I'm pleased to know that half of Americans actually do that.

 

[DirtyDog]

I think you've got to be a total dumbass if you can't connect Saddam to middle eastern terrorism.

Every post is an adventure....

 

[valve bouncer]

headline might as well have said "43% of americans are dumber than bush"

Stinko...mate...mate....good to see ya back. Where have ya been?

 

[SofaKingBanned]

Stinko...mate...mate....good to see ya back. Where have ya been?

oh damn, i only read what was said, not who said it...

Stinkle's back! woot!

 

[valve bouncer]

Every post is an adventure....

"Every post is a steaming pile of sh*t".....is that the default RM response to an N8 post? If not it should be.

 

[valve bouncer]

oh damn, i only read what was said, not who said it...

Stinkle's back! woot!

When one of the great PAWNED warriors returns we must all rejoice. BTW Stinkle-------------"CUNT"-------------------
(You can only say that in the PAWN forum)

 

[$tinkle]

Stinko...mate...mate....good to see ya back. Where have ya been?

been busy teaching your boyfriend that thing you like. (he's a slow learner)

 

[sanjuro]

I think you've got to be a total dumbass if you can't connect Saddam to middle eastern terrorism.

How is that? A secular dictator involved with islamic terrorists?

Did Saddam fund any terrorist activities?
Were there terrorist bases in Iraq?
Are there any Iraqi Al-Queda/Hezbollah members?

 

[BurlyShirley]

How is that? A secular dictator involved with islamic terrorists?

Secular? Ask the curds about secular.

Im not saying I think there was involvement, but let's not get out of hand here.

 

[SofaKingBanned]

How is that? A secular dictator involved with islamic terrorists?

Did Saddam fund any terrorist activities?
Were there terrorist bases in Iraq?
Are there any Iraqi Al-Queda/Hezbollah members?

Here's another example (with BS's curds post) He paid palestinian suicide bomber's families $25,000.

Saddam most definitely was involved with terrorists and terrorism.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Here's another example (with BS's curds post) He paid palestinian suicide bomber's families $25,000.

Saddam most definitely was involved with terrorists and terrorism.

We are talking 9-11 here...

 

[valve bouncer]

Here's another example (with BS's curds post) He paid palestinian suicide bomber's families $25,000.

Saddam most definitely was involved with terrorists and terrorism.

Loopie, that dog won't hunt. He only turned "Islamist" after he was threatened.
No Saddam was a proper dictator, based on bastardry.

 

[SofaKingBanned]

I'm just saying'

 

[SofaKingBanned]

We are talking 9-11 here...

no we're not.

Technically, your first post was about how dumb people are.

 

[$tinkle]

How is that? A secular dictator involved with islamic terrorists?

this is how (PBS's frontline interview w/ sabah khodada)

In terms of training, they will train in this special camp. But after this training, they will go in small groups. These small groups are directly connected with Saddam, or to Saddam's son.

there's lots more from this interview alone, but i'm choosing to post just a terse response

Did Saddam fund any terrorist activities?

you mean in addition to paying the families of palestinian suicide bombers?

Were there terrorist bases in Iraq?

3 camps come to mind in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak

Are there any Iraqi Al-Queda/Hezbollah members?

google news results for "al-qaeda in Iraq" yields a few inconvenient truths. hezbollah are rooted in iran, so i wouldn't expect many to be found openly in iraq, but could be a mainstay in some of the shiite sponsored terrorism.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Who cares about these useless polls that come out every other week for no other purpose than to stir the political pot and make us appear before the world as naught but gullible, simpleton sheep. Hell, 40% probably still believe the world is flat, that storks deliver babies and that stroking off causes blindness but I don't see polls like this denegrating the citizens of other nations...fvcking agenda-pushing, fargetty, 3-card-monte pollsters!

 

[SofaKingBanned]

...but I don't see polls like this denegrating the citizens of other nations...

That's cuz nobody cares about other nations.

Do you care that the Florida Atlantic University football team was caught with booze and chicks with the girls from the field hockey catholic school a few miles away? Would it be news if it was the NY Yankees?

 

[RenegadeRick]

no we're not.

Technically, your first post was about how dumb people are.

Did you fail to read the title of the thread? Did you see 9-11 in there?

 

[SofaKingBanned]

Did you fail to read the title of the thread? Did you see 9-11 in there?

Oh crap, I thought it said, "More Than 4 in 10 Americans Still Think food at 7-11* is tasty and good for you."

My bad.

* for our friends overseas... 7-11 is a quick stop food mart.

 

[MikeD]

No, Saddam wasn't involved with 9-11.

Yes, Saddam was in bed with radical Islam since the US abandoned him. I, for one, was shocked to learn the truth of this, because like everyone else who half paid attention in college, I knew Saddam was a Ba'athist, secular dictator, and was proud of my tidbit of knowledge.

However, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" just barely begins to describe the fluidity of alliance and influence in the Middle East. (Or hell, in the West...)

It's a bad bait-and-switch to start the thread deriding the 9-11 connection, then ask if Saddam was involved with radical Islamists, then try and smear those who answer factually with the mud of the "Iraq was behind 9-11" crowd.

MD

 

[sanjuro]

this is how (PBS's frontline interview w/ sabah khodada)there's lots more from this interview alone, but i'm choosing to post just a terse responseyou mean in addition to paying the families of palestinian suicide bombers?
3 camps come to mind in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak
google news results for "al-qaeda in Iraq" yields a few inconvenient truths. hezbollah are rooted in iran, so i wouldn't expect many to be found openly in iraq, but could be a mainstay in some of the shiite sponsored terrorism.

I think we should invade Iraq ASAP...

 

[N8 v2.0]

I think we should invade Iraq ASAP...

under consideration.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Did we really need another example of how stupid many Americans are?

It is kinda funny how most Republicans think Iraq was involved in 9-11, even though their fearless leader has clearly stated that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

What do you think N8?

Who cares?

There's a lot more serious matters to worry about at the moment:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-lonelygirl8sep08,0,5310001.story?track=mostviewed-sectionfront

 

[stevew]

Every post is an adventure....

reminds me of a line from this season of Deadwood...

 

[V-Dub GTI]

Did Saddam fund any terrorist activities? - Yes, it has been proved but i dont have a link to it.

Were there terrorist bases in Iraq?- not in their entirity.

Are there any Iraqi Al-Queda/Hezbollah members? Yes.

Sory but i agree with N8 on this issue.

 

[Silver]

Did Saddam fund any terrorist activities? - Yes, it has been proved but i dont have a link to it.

Were there terrorist bases in Iraq?- not in their entirity.

Are there any Iraqi Al-Queda/Hezbollah members? Yes.

Find something other than giving money to Palestinan families of suicide bombers. The entire Middle East with the exception of Israel does that.

Show me how many Iraqi Al-Qaeda members there were prior to the US invasion of Iraq that were operating under Saddam's authority against the United States.

 

[stevew]

I thought it was more....

 

[BurlyShirley]

Find something other than giving money to Palestinan families of suicide bombers. The entire Middle East with the exception of Israel does that.

Show me how many Iraqi Al-Qaeda members there were prior to the US invasion of Iraq that were operating under Saddam's authority against the United States.

So now the ties just have to fit YOUR criteria?

 

[SofaKingBanned]

So now the ties just have to fit YOUR criteria?

Did you not bother to comprehend his entire post? He's saying we need to invade 'em all.

 

[dante]

in an unrelated poll, 43% of americans are actually mentally retarded!

 

[sanjuro]

Well, we sponsored Al-Queda when there were called the Mujahdeen and they were fighting the Russians.

I say we invade the United States next and perform a regime change.

 

[$tinkle]

update from gray lady:

C.I.A. Said to Find No Hussein Link to Terror Chief

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Central Intelligence Agency last fall repudiated the claim that there were prewar ties between Saddam Hussein’s government and an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a report issued Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The disclosure undercuts continuing assertions by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee, in a second report, also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

The findings are part of a continuing inquiry by the committee into prewar intelligence about Iraq. The conclusions went beyond its earlier findings, issued in the summer of 2004, by including criticism not just of American intelligence agencies but also of the administration.

Several Republicans strongly dissented on the report with conclusions about the Iraqi National Congress, saying they overstated the role that the exile group had played in the prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq. But the committee overwhelmingly approved the other report, with only one Republican senator voting against it.

The reports did not address the politically divisive question of whether the Bush administration had exaggerated or misused intelligence as part of its effort to win support for the war. But one report did contradict the administration’s assertions, made before the war and since, that ties between Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Hussein’s government provided evidence of a close relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

As recently as Aug. 21, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein “had relations with Zarqawi.’’ But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 concluded instead that Mr. Hussein’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or even turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the new Senate findings.

The C.I.A. report also contradicted claims made in February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who mentioned Mr. Zarqawi no fewer than 20 times during a speech to the United Nations Security Council that made the administration’s case for going to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell said that Iraq “today harbors a deadly terrorist network’’ headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as “not credible’’ assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi’s whereabouts.

The panel concluded that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential ally, and that the Iraqi intelligence service “actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.’’

One of the reports by the committee criticized a decision by the National Security Council in 2002 to maintain a close relationship with the Iraqi National Congress, headed by the exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, even after the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency had warned that “the I.N.C was penetrated by hostile intelligence services,” notably Iran.

The report concluded that the organization had provided a large volume of flawed intelligence to the United States about Iraq, and concluded that the group “attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists.”

The findings were released at an inopportune time for the Bush administration, which has spent the week trying to turn voters’ attention away from the missteps on Iraq and toward the more comfortable political territory of the continued terrorist threat. On Friday, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, played down the reports, saying that they contained “nothing new” and were “re-litigating things that happened three years ago.”

“The important thing to do is to figure out what you’re doing tomorrow, and the day after, and the month after, and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won,” Mr. Snow said.

The two reports released Friday were expected to be the least controversial aspects of what remains of the Senate committee’s investigation, which will eventually address whether the Bush administration’s assertions about Iraq accurately reflected the available intelligence. But unanticipated delays caused them to be released in the heat of the fall political campaign.

The reports were approved by the committee in August, but went through a monthlong declassification process. It was Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the committee’s Republican chairman, who set early September as the release date.

The committee’s report in 2004, which lambasted intelligence agencies for vastly overestimating the state of Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, was issued with unanimous approval. But the reports released Friday provided evidence of how much the relationship between Republicans and Democrats on the committee had degenerated over the past two years.

A set of conclusions that included criticism of the administration’s ties with the Iraqi National Congress was opposed by several Republicans on the panel, including Mr. Roberts, but was approved with the support of two Republicans, Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, and Olympia Snowe, of Maine, along with all seven Democrats. Senator Roberts even took the unusual step of disavowing the conclusions about the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, saying that they were “misleading and are not supported by the facts.”

The report about the group’s role concluded that faulty intelligence from the group made its way into several prewar intelligence reports, including the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that directly preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq war. It says that sources introduced to American intelligence by the group directly influenced two key judgments of that document: that Mr. Hussein possessed mobile biological weapons laboratories and that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program.

The report said there was insufficient evidence to determine whether one of the most notorious of the intelligence sources used by the United States before the Iraq war was tied to the Iraqi National Congress. The source, an Iraqi who was code-named Curveball, was a crucial source for the American view that Mr. Hussein had a mobile biological weapons program, but the information that he provided was later entirely discredited.

The report said other mistaken information about Iraq’s biological program had been provided by a source linked to the Iraqi National Congress, and it said the intelligence agencies’ use of the information had “constituted a serious error.’’

The dissenting opinion, signed by Mr. Roberts and four other Republican members of the committee, minimized the role played by Mr. Chalabi’s group. “Information from the I.N.C. and I.N.C.-affiliated defectors was not widely used in intelligence community products and played little role in the intelligence community’s judgments about Iraq’s W.M.D. programs,” the Republicans said.

Francis Brooke, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, called the report “tendentious, partisan and misleading,” and said that the group had not played a central role as the Bush administration built the case for war.

At the same time, Mr. Brooke said his organization was surprised at how little the American government knew about Mr. Hussein’s government before the war, which may have forced the American officials to rely more heavily on the organization. “We did not realize the paucity of human intelligence that the administration had on Iraq,” he said.

well i sure picked an inopportune time to come out of monkey retirement.

frick.