Yeah, but here's some good news:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732

I wouldn't be too upset Brian. Since "Poll America" has a population of 1000 - 2000 citizens. "Real America" isn't for that 70% crap. But if they are.....

Well, I don't know what the actual poll question was, but I do recall Saddam Hussein saying something to the degree that we deserved it, after 9-11 occurred, so with those words being so well documented in the media (and MSNBC playing it over and over again, it's not hard to see why many Americans would feel that Hussein did have something to do with it). I'm not sure if he did or not, but one thing is clear: Saddam Hussein did like the negative impact of 9-11 on America, therefore, it's easy to assume that he did have some involvement, of some sort. The poll didn't ask people to give them their views, which would make this poll much more accurate, most likely, or if questions were added to discover what role people feel Hussein played. I don't believe the poll sited is a Zogby poll (but the economy one is), which really is the only credible, non-baited poll out there (it comes the closest to being accurate). Quite frankly, though, I think it's good that Hussein is out of power, now we just need to get some more nations on our side so that we can rebuild Iraq into the nice democratic republic that it should've always been.

I guess you are also one of those folks that believed that the Communists were reasonable people and all we had to do is show our good faith.....and that Reagan was insane and would lead us to nuclear holocaust by his actions.

Um, John (#3), the actual poll question was: "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?" And the fact that so many people answered in the affirmitave (37% "somewhat likely" and 32% "very likely") is very weird. It was a small sample (1003 people!), but the question still seems clear, and those answers are clearly wrong based on all available evidence.


I've crossed horns with Brian before over his assertion that there is no link whatsoever (outside of Bush's mind) between our war in Iraq and the overall "war on terror," but there is definitely no direct link between Hussein and 9/11.

Jaime (#4), calm down. At least ask questions instead of making generalizations. Maybe Brian believes those things and maybe he doesn't. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Brian: Agreed, this is sad. 'Twould be better for people to have accurate facts before making determinations about the justification (or lack thereof) for military action. Even with accurate facts, people can still disagree (as we do), but not knowing the facts just sucks.

I am always looking for facts to substantiate my thoughts, but in the case of Saddam Hussein, I don't have enough variables. Even still, I suspect that he had some role financially in the terrorism leading up to 9/11.

I know that following the first gulf war, everyone knows he was embezzling oil money against UN reparations policy. That led to a bunch of cash in his pocket. I am pretty sure he wouldn't have written a check to terrorists, so it seems relatively reasonable to me given his enemies and his vast amount of cash that some of it might have been filtered toward terrorism. It really isn't far-fetched that we can't find proof of this.

That being said, I am still not sure that is enough to justify what we have done in Iraq, but to say there is no connection is naive. To say there is no proven connection is the only correct statement in my mind.

Craig (#6), I agree that there is evidence of a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism in general. However, there is no evidence of a connection between Hussein and 9/11.

Whether the general connection between Hussein and terrorism (in the form of financing terrorists and their families, at the very least) justifying taking action against Iraq during a "war on terror" is a reasonably debatable point on which honest people can disagree. I happen to believe that is does, though it's not necessarily the choice I would have made. Brian doesn't, and others don't. I can understand that, but what is done is done, and to bring all of our troops home tomorrow would be create a mess the likes of which we have only dreamed of before.

Points to ponder:

1). Pretty much ALL of the various intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq did have a WMD program in place back in 1990...but that Gulf War I, 10 years of sanctions + Inspection teams had eroded his WMD capability to the point where it was, in their own assessments, not a credible threat against the US. Or even their immediate neighbors. It is fairly clear that the WMD was a smokescreen to justify the US war on Iraq (note: I'm not passing judgement on the morality fo the war, but if you think the claims of WMD justifies the price tag being paid...well, I have some swampland in Florida for you - real cheap!).

2). Bin Ladin LOATHED Saddam. Saddam (for all of his other faults) was relatively secular, a member of the quasi-socialist Baath party, and comparatively modern in his outlook (as vicious, domineering psychopaths go)...in relative comparision to most of his neighbors. All part and parcel of everything that OBL despised the most. It is highly doubtful that Bin Ladin and Saddam would ever have anything to do with one another, even if they shared an enemy like the US. And, point ot remember, the US was a "real good pal" of Saddam during his war with Iran back in the early 80's - including our buddy Rumsfeld who had direct dealings with him back then.

3). Even if Saddam had a significant WMD program and had developed several nuclear weapons - why would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop one...and then throw it away giving it to some fringe terrorist group that you don't trust and probably doesn't share your interests? So they can blow up New York? Don't be egotistical - the US in the long run is not the center that the Middle East politics revolves around. Israel is the primary thorn in his side and the potential advantage that Saddam would get from a nuclear program would be a). deterrance of Israel and b). A Nasserite self-image across the Arab world and c). something to wave at his immediate neighbors to gain concessions.