»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
A poll hoax?
| The Alley |
|
A poll hoax? |
|
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597
|
http://alternet.org/election04/20263/[/URL] Unbelievable, either way. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Krawdad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Absolutely frightening isn't it? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Absolutely incredible. And I'm using the old definition: in-credible. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
lol |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
That is funny, but not terribly surprising. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Smart pollsters can make the results of a poll say anything they want by the way they form the questions. You all know that. What were the questions then? What are the credentials of these groups taking the poll? Those are questions you should be asking....if you want to be unbiased. I can't speak for what "most" Bush supporters think. I can only speak for myself. I will guess, however, that many of our points would be similar. Here is what this supporter believes.... (1) The entire world thought Iraq had WMD'S - because they said so. (2) Clinton thought Hussein had WMD's and called him the most dangerous man in the world - one who had to be taken out of power - because he said so. (3) Kennedy, Pelosi, Dashell, Kerry and others stated they knew DEFINITELY that Iraq had WMD's - because it's on the record. (4) Kennedy called for a war on Iraq, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons - because it is on the record. (5) All of this happened 2 years before Bush took office. (6) 9/11 actually happened (regardless of how Democrats ignore it) (7) Before 9/11, there were other attempts - the first WTC attack, embassy bombings, the USS Cole, among others. (8) There are terrorist groups out there whose only goal is the destruction of the United States and all democracies - becasue they have said so. (9) Hussein hated the US after being driven out of Kuwait. (10) Iraq would provide an excellent "safe" area for terrorists and Hussein, who was still considered to have WMD's, would be happy to help them against the US....because it is only logical. Taking all of these points into consideration, I still find it impossible to believe anyone would not have considered Hussein a direct threat, especially after 9/11 and I would bet dollars to doughnuts that, if it were Clinton still in power making that decision, most of you out there complaining would not be saying a word. I strongly disagree with the way Bush handled the situation in Iraq AFTER the invasion but to not invade and remove Hussein from power would have been an incredible mistake, in my opinion - something, of course, we will never know. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: True, but the entire world also didn't think war was the right solution. quote: But he didn't go to war. quote: Yet, none of those people ordered troops into the battlefield. By the way, they were all wrong. quote: He was wrong. quote: And the Iraqi war happened two years after he was in office. quote: Yes, it happened. Gee, it would be nice if someone remembered WHO DID IT. quote: Yeah, what did Iraq have to with those attacks? quote: I think you mean Israel. Are they the same thing? quote: So? quote: So? Everybody thought Iraq had WMD's. They were wrong. The war was fought to get rid of those WMD's. Therefore, the war was wrong. It's only logical.  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, “Everybody thought Iraq had WMD's” Plus Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 1:20 PM EDT (1720 GMT) CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country warned the United States several times that Saddam Hussein's regime was planning terror attacks on the United States and its overseas interests. Putin's comments in Kazakhstan came amid a new debate in the United States about the extent of ties between Saddam and the al Qaeda terrorist network triggered by a preliminary report from the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said. “ With this at the time, what was the United States supposed to do? John P.S. This evening I listened to Hans Blix make an interesting comment regarding Hussein’s activities prior to the war. He speculated they were like someone posting “Beware of the Dog” signs when he in fact had no dog. Still, this is the second time I’ve heard it that Saddam’s regime actively worked to at least create the impression that they had WMD. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, you are committing the same palaver the Democrats are using...leaving out 9/11 as if it had no effect. No, Clinton and cronies didn't go to war....it was pre-9/11. Can you say they would not have if it were post-9/11? Can you say that they would not have considered Hussein an "immediate" threat if it were post-9/11. Whether you wish to acknowledle it or not, having thousands killed in a terrorist attack DID have some signifigance on future actions. Hussein was a man with a hatred for the United States, considered to have WMD's and would be sympathetic to the terrorist movement. Can you not even consider that even Clinton would have decided to move on him if it were after 9/11? At worst, we could have gotten him involved in another scandal and we KNOW he would have attacked!!! Your last comment was accurate....and the crux of the whole shebang. The information on WMD's was wrong, therefore the war was wrong, even though it removed a future "safe haven" for the terrorists and just happened to save tens of thousands of Iraqui lives that would hae been killed by Hussein and his sons by now. No, the war was wrong because the consensus of the entire world was wrong. That's a far different cry from "Bush lied about WMD's!" rhetoric that Kerry has been trying to shove down every voter's throat. From the beginning of his campaign, Kerry's rhetoric consisted of attacks that Bush lied, that Bush deceived, that Bush connived, conveniently omitting the fact that every other major country thought WMD's existed, too (along with Clinton, himself, and every major Democratic member of congress). That's what makes his attacks so sleazy. Edwards is no better.... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But if you use 911 to justify an attack on Iraq, it can be used to justify an attack on anyone at anytime. The reason we didn't go to war earlier is precisely because we were afraid that it would create a power vacuum and destabilize the whole region. Gee, look what happened and is happening. 41 was right. 43 was wrong. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
But if you use 911 to justify an attack on Iraq, it can be used to justify an attack on anyone at anytime. Anyone? Anytime? That's what you get from it? Hussein was then nothing more than a victim of a Bush gone mad? If those are your thoughts then there is not much more that I can say to that. What Bush is being criticized for is acting BEFORE the fact instead of, as Clinton and Kerry would do, waiting for tragedy to happen and then act. We were a nation under attack and he went to the most logical areas where current and future attacks would likely come from and neutralized them - Afghanistan where terrorists were being harbored and Iraq, where (according to world belief) wmd's existed in the hands of a madman who would have no qualms about using them against the US or supplying others to do the same. So far it seems to have worked, at least to the point of where we have not been attacked on our home turf since. Could he have gone other places? Sure -North Korea Iran, Syria...but you can't go for all at once. His starting place was Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't find that choice illogical. Yes, we were concerned about the balance of power as far as taking out Hussein was concerned...not the power in Iraq but the power in the region. I do not see where that has been affected adversely. "No, the war was wrong because the consensus of the entire world was wrong. That's a far different cry from "Bush lied about WMD's!" rhetoric that Kerry has been trying to shove down every voter's throat." You missed commenting on that. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it... |
||
|
Rowley Junior Member
since 2001-04-07
Posts 30 |
"But if you use 911 to justify an attack on Iraq, it can be used to justify an attack on anyone at anytime." Good call Brad! I like it! |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
quote: Am I the only one that conjured from this the image of a crazed shrub springing out of the garden, branches flailing wildly, thorns dripping with blood like a bad B-movie? Yeah, thought so.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled political debate. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOLOL!!! Hey, if they can make The Atack of the Killer Tomatoes, anything is possible!!  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
