I saw this and immediately thought of Bottomfeeder

[Tigermike 3,040]

[TexasTiger 12,964]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The reason for the conspiracy theories is directly proportional to the lack of real political debate and leadership in America today. Sheeple believe the official story without thinking for themselves, that's why6 they are called sheeple. Are you one? I call them sideline patriots. Our own government has a history of using false flags, so why not this time? They did it, and nothing has convinced me otherwise.

[Tigermike 3,040]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

Still toeing the party line huh Tex.

[MDM4AU 332]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

Well, hell, the world was better off before Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. That was certainly before the US went into Iraq.

Our going into Iraq didn't make Radical Islam hate us. Our going into Iraq didn't start Iran's nuclear program or their wish to initiate the beginning of Armageddon and the return of the 12th Eamon (sp??). It didn't create their wish for one big Islamic State throughout the Middle East. It didn't jump start N Korea's nuclear aspirations. It didn't cause Chavez to become a wacko socialist. Granted, going into Iraq didn't help any of these situations. It at least provided all of them a reason to offer up to the world. But these things were already in process and were going to happen if we went into Iraq or not. Iran's plans started long before W, Clinton, and HW Bush. Iran would have crushed Iraq for sure so to claim that Iraq would have been better off w/ Saddam still in power is bunk. Especially since there were "WMDs".

I'm not saying you are wrong, just wanted to make sure it was all in proper context. I'm sure you understand.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

Still toeing the party line huh Tex.

I'm looking at facts, logic and reason. You're toeing the party line despite all evidence. One day, maybe, you'll see it. At least most people will.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI

Published: September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

[AURaptor 1,125]

I know I'm better off after we've attacked Iraq. Dunno about the rest of y'all,but life is better w/ Saddam out of power.

Thanks W!

[Tigermike 3,040]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

Still toeing the party line huh Tex.

I'm looking at facts, logic and reason. You're toeing the party line despite all evidence. One day, maybe, you'll see it. At least most people will.

I posted a cartoon. You made a statement that for the most part toes the DNC line. Your statement was "One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq." If Iraq had not been defeated, Saddam would still be in power. Therefore my question is valid. I will ask again do you think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power?

As far as me toeing the party line, I didn't say anything, I asked you a question. I did not defend Bush, or Bush policies. Nor did I defend going into Iraq. I asked you a direct question and you start pointing fingers at me to keep from answering.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

Still toeing the party line huh Tex.

I'm looking at facts, logic and reason. You're toeing the party line despite all evidence. One day, maybe, you'll see it. At least most people will.

I posted a cartoon. You made a statement that for the most part toes the DNC line. Your statement was "One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq." If Iraq had not been defeated, Saddam would still be in power. Therefore my question is valid. I will ask again do you think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power?

As far as me toeing the party line, I didn't say anything, I asked you a question. I did not defend Bush, or Bush policies. Nor did I defend going into Iraq. I asked you a direct question and you start pointing fingers at me to keep from answering.

We traded a secular tyrant who did not support OBL or Al Qaeda or Iran, and vice-versa, for a country where support for all three now thrives. There are no good guys in white hats here. Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side.

My statement didn't toe the party line. Rockefeller only recently stated it and that was news because few prominent Dems had said it. This was my position BEFORE the Iraq war when gutless Dems were going along with it in the Senate. If it becomes the party line, then that means the party will have eventually caught up with me.

BTW, you posted a political cartoon with a political message on a political forum, so "I just posted a cartoon" is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

[Tigermike 3,040]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

Still toeing the party line huh Tex.

I'm looking at facts, logic and reason. You're toeing the party line despite all evidence. One day, maybe, you'll see it. At least most people will.

I posted a cartoon. You made a statement that for the most part toes the DNC line. Your statement was "One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq." If Iraq had not been defeated, Saddam would still be in power. Therefore my question is valid. I will ask again do you think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power?

As far as me toeing the party line, I didn't say anything, I asked you a question. I did not defend Bush, or Bush policies. Nor did I defend going into Iraq. I asked you a direct question and you start pointing fingers at me to keep from answering.

We traded a secular tyrant who did not support OBL or Al Qaeda or Iran, and vice-versa, for a country where support for all three now thrives. There are no good guys in white hats here. Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side.

My statement didn't toe the party line. Rockefeller only recently stated it and that was news because few prominent Dems had said it. This was my position BEFORE the Iraq war when gutless Dems were going along with it in the Senate. If it becomes the party line, then that means the party will have eventually caught up with me.

BTW, you posted a political cartoon with a political message on a political forum, so "I just posted a cartoon" is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

No not at all. I titled the thread "I saw this and immediately thought of Bottomfeeder". That is what I was thinking. You turned it into another bash Bush endeavor. You continue to rant about the WOT being anywhere other than Afghanistan. It is not and should not be limited to Afghanistan. Nor is OBL the one and only terrorist leader that should be hunted down and killed. If they had killed or captured OBL in the first two or three months in Afghanistan, the WOT still needed to be fought and WON. If he were dead or captured, al-Zawahri would be calling the shots and probably in a more ruthless manner.

You say "Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side."

I would say that your outlook on the WOT is both simplistic and short sighted. Those people cannot be negotiated with nor is the WOT a police matter. Those people wouldn't show up for a court case, no matter how many indictment's you bring against them.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

Still toeing the party line huh Tex.

I'm looking at facts, logic and reason. You're toeing the party line despite all evidence. One day, maybe, you'll see it. At least most people will.

I posted a cartoon. You made a statement that for the most part toes the DNC line. Your statement was "One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq." If Iraq had not been defeated, Saddam would still be in power. Therefore my question is valid. I will ask again do you think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power?

As far as me toeing the party line, I didn't say anything, I asked you a question. I did not defend Bush, or Bush policies. Nor did I defend going into Iraq. I asked you a direct question and you start pointing fingers at me to keep from answering.

We traded a secular tyrant who did not support OBL or Al Qaeda or Iran, and vice-versa, for a country where support for all three now thrives. There are no good guys in white hats here. Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side.

My statement didn't toe the party line. Rockefeller only recently stated it and that was news because few prominent Dems had said it. This was my position BEFORE the Iraq war when gutless Dems were going along with it in the Senate. If it becomes the party line, then that means the party will have eventually caught up with me.

BTW, you posted a political cartoon with a political message on a political forum, so "I just posted a cartoon" is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

No not at all. I titled the thread "I saw this and immediately thought of Bottomfeeder". That is what I was thinking. You turned it into another bash Bush endeavor. You continue to rant about the WOT being anywhere other than Afghanistan. It is not and should not be limited to Afghanistan. Nor is OBL the one and only terrorist leader that should be hunted down and killed. If they had killed or captured OBL in the first two or three months in Afghanistan, the WOT still needed to be fought and WON. If he were dead or captured, al-Zawahri would be calling the shots and probably in a more ruthless manner.

You say "Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side."

I would say that your outlook on the WOT is both simplistic and short sighted. Those people cannot be negotiated with nor is the WOT a police matter. Those people wouldn't show up for a court case, no matter how many indictment's you bring against them.

Not sure what was on your mind when you replied, but it obviously wasn't anything I had written.

You posted a cartoon that indicated one is a nut if he thinks the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein was still in power. I replied directly to that, period. You took it from there. Any disagreement with what you think, you deem to be a "bash Bush endeavor." No dissension allowed in the Republican world. That sounds alot like the enemy we are fighting in order to preserve our "freedom" to agree with the President.

[Tigermike 3,040]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

Still toeing the party line huh Tex.

I'm looking at facts, logic and reason. You're toeing the party line despite all evidence. One day, maybe, you'll see it. At least most people will.

I posted a cartoon. You made a statement that for the most part toes the DNC line. Your statement was "One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq." If Iraq had not been defeated, Saddam would still be in power. Therefore my question is valid. I will ask again do you think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power?

As far as me toeing the party line, I didn't say anything, I asked you a question. I did not defend Bush, or Bush policies. Nor did I defend going into Iraq. I asked you a direct question and you start pointing fingers at me to keep from answering.

We traded a secular tyrant who did not support OBL or Al Qaeda or Iran, and vice-versa, for a country where support for all three now thrives. There are no good guys in white hats here. Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side.

My statement didn't toe the party line. Rockefeller only recently stated it and that was news because few prominent Dems had said it. This was my position BEFORE the Iraq war when gutless Dems were going along with it in the Senate. If it becomes the party line, then that means the party will have eventually caught up with me.

BTW, you posted a political cartoon with a political message on a political forum, so "I just posted a cartoon" is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

No not at all. I titled the thread "I saw this and immediately thought of Bottomfeeder". That is what I was thinking. You turned it into another bash Bush endeavor. You continue to rant about the WOT being anywhere other than Afghanistan. It is not and should not be limited to Afghanistan. Nor is OBL the one and only terrorist leader that should be hunted down and killed. If they had killed or captured OBL in the first two or three months in Afghanistan, the WOT still needed to be fought and WON. If he were dead or captured, al-Zawahri would be calling the shots and probably in a more ruthless manner.

You say "Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side."

I would say that your outlook on the WOT is both simplistic and short sighted. Those people cannot be negotiated with nor is the WOT a police matter. Those people wouldn't show up for a court case, no matter how many indictment's you bring against them.

Not sure what was on your mind when you replied, but it obviously wasn't anything I had written.

You posted a cartoon that indicated one is a nut if he thinks the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein was still in power. I replied directly to that, period. You took it from there. Any disagreement with what you think, you deem to be a "bash Bush endeavor." No dissension allowed in the Republican world. That sounds alot like the enemy we are fighting in order to preserve our "freedom" to agree with the President.

There it is folks, Texas Tiger says the world was better off with Sodom in power and wishes that the Butcher of Baghdad was still ruling Iraq.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

Still toeing the party line huh Tex.

I'm looking at facts, logic and reason. You're toeing the party line despite all evidence. One day, maybe, you'll see it. At least most people will.

I posted a cartoon. You made a statement that for the most part toes the DNC line. Your statement was "One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq." If Iraq had not been defeated, Saddam would still be in power. Therefore my question is valid. I will ask again do you think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power?

As far as me toeing the party line, I didn't say anything, I asked you a question. I did not defend Bush, or Bush policies. Nor did I defend going into Iraq. I asked you a direct question and you start pointing fingers at me to keep from answering.

We traded a secular tyrant who did not support OBL or Al Qaeda or Iran, and vice-versa, for a country where support for all three now thrives. There are no good guys in white hats here. Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side.

My statement didn't toe the party line. Rockefeller only recently stated it and that was news because few prominent Dems had said it. This was my position BEFORE the Iraq war when gutless Dems were going along with it in the Senate. If it becomes the party line, then that means the party will have eventually caught up with me.

BTW, you posted a political cartoon with a political message on a political forum, so "I just posted a cartoon" is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

No not at all. I titled the thread "I saw this and immediately thought of Bottomfeeder". That is what I was thinking. You turned it into another bash Bush endeavor. You continue to rant about the WOT being anywhere other than Afghanistan. It is not and should not be limited to Afghanistan. Nor is OBL the one and only terrorist leader that should be hunted down and killed. If they had killed or captured OBL in the first two or three months in Afghanistan, the WOT still needed to be fought and WON. If he were dead or captured, al-Zawahri would be calling the shots and probably in a more ruthless manner.

You say "Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side."

I would say that your outlook on the WOT is both simplistic and short sighted. Those people cannot be negotiated with nor is the WOT a police matter. Those people wouldn't show up for a court case, no matter how many indictment's you bring against them.

Not sure what was on your mind when you replied, but it obviously wasn't anything I had written.

You posted a cartoon that indicated one is a nut if he thinks the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein was still in power. I replied directly to that, period. You took it from there. Any disagreement with what you think, you deem to be a "bash Bush endeavor." No dissension allowed in the Republican world. That sounds alot like the enemy we are fighting in order to preserve our "freedom" to agree with the President.

There it is folks, Texas Tiger says the world was better off with Sodom in power and wishes that the Butcher of Baghdad was still ruling Iraq.

That's toeing the party line! Way-to-go! You don't want to discuss, you don't want logic, reason or facts. You just want a soundbite. But that also means that Tigermike is an ally of OBL and the President of Iran who all wanted the same thing. "OBL, the crazy President of Iran and Tigermike all think alike." That's the flip side of these little simplistic gotcha techniques.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI

Published: September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

What facts do you have here, Tex? You linked an article from the NY Times -- a paper that's been embarassed for hiring reporters that have either embellished or flat out made up stuff for their articles. An objective look at the article you linked shows that it is long on inferences and short on specifics:

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

I could poke holes in any one of the sentences above (e.g. "outside experts", "both supporters and critics", "several government agencies.") It all gives the apperance of objectivity & seriousness. Why should we believe the NY Times now? They have a bad track record when it comes to credibility, don't you agree? None of what is reported above can be verified as "fact" because the alleged document is allegedly "highly classified" -- so highly classified, the NY Times gets to report on it. One has to completely trust the NY Times in order to believe this artical is factual. Color me skeptical.

[otterinbham 0]

The Invasion of Iraq is a classic instance of the old dictum of Conservation of Enemies.

Our priority was exterminating global terror. Our invasion of Afghanistan was completely aligned with that.

Iraq was not. Sloppy intelligence work provided the Bush administration with the pretext for war. I do not believe that Bush ginned up evidence to rationalize an invasion. However, I believe that the Bush administration believed the facts they wanted to despite some definite dissenting voices in the intelligence community.

[Tigermike 3,040]

I asked you a simple damn question and you have danced around like a three legged goat at an al-Qaeda meeting ever since. Do you remember this question?

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

It's a pretty straight forward question. Yes or no should suffice. It shouldn't take four days and an untold number of accusations and changes in direction by you to answer the question.

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

That is your statement that caused me to ask the question. Since you have gone out of your way to not answer in a straight forward manner, I drew a logical conclusion.

You say "The world was better off before we invaded Iraq." If the Iraq war had not taken place then Sodom Hussein would still be in power. Therefore Texas Tiger says the world would be better off if Sodom Hussein were still in power.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

I asked you a simple damn question and you have danced around like a three legged goat at an al-Qaeda meeting ever since. Do you remember this question?

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

So then you ascribe to the theory that The world would be better off if Saddam Hussen was still in power.

It's a pretty straight forward question. Yes or no should suffice. It shouldn't take four days and an untold number of accusations and changes in direction by you to answer the question.

One thing is true. The world was better off before we invaded Iraq.

That is your statement that caused me to ask the question. Since you have gone out of your way to not answer in a straight forward manner, I drew a logical conclusion.

You say "The world was better off before we invaded Iraq." If the Iraq war had not taken place then Sodom Hussein would still be in power. Therefore Texas Tiger says the world would be better off if Sodom Hussein were still in power.

Oh yeah? Well, War Eagle, brother!

[Bottomfeeder 244]

But, what about the WMD and the last throes of the insugency?

Failure, Failure, Failure!

dubyamovie.com

Big News: The War Failed

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Just so that we are clear on this, we should be reminded that the stated policy of the Bush administration, just before bombing Iraq's cities and overthrowing its Sunni government, was to bring freedom, democracy, and pluralistic happiness to the country.

Five years later, the puppet government in Baghdad is still in a bunker, tanks patrol streets, there are curfews and speech controls, major parts of the country have effectively seceded, the water is dirty and disease ridden, electricity is still off, migration out increases exponentially, tribal war is routine, American soldiers' heads are blown off if they so much as poke them out of the foxhole, and religious and ethnic hatreds grow.

We keep hearing that Iraq is "on the brink" of civil war, but how will we know when we move from brink to reality? The Sunnis hate the ruling Shiites, the Kurds hate them both, and everyone hates the Christians and Jews. It's all about a struggle for power: who gets to twist the thumbscrews, and whose thumbs are screwed. If this is the brink, the reality will be unbearable.

Can you imagine that anyone in the US believed that the answer to these problems was to put George Bush in charge?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-failed.html

[CCTAU 3,335]

We traded a secular tyrant who did not support OBL or Al Qaeda or Iran, and vice-versa, for a country where support for all three now thrives. There are no good guys in white hats here. Bushco and friends want everything to be simple with good on one side and evil on the other. In some scenarios, good isn't on either side.

You are so totally in your 55 gallon drum again. The new government does not support all three. They don't support any of the three. The support for all three is coming from where it always has, outside governments. The difference is that Sadaam DID and would have continued to support terrorism while setting up for the attainment of MORE WMDs in the future.

Like I said before, you and your ilk should have the balls to stand in a room and open one of those little, itty, bitty, baby jars full of the gas he had on the end of a couple of missiles. A WMD is something that can kill more than a few people. Nukes fall under that, but so does the things they found Sadaam to still have, One big differnce is that he had ALREADY used them on his own people. If he had the chance to use them on us, he would.

THE WORLD IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT SADAAM. Hey you could move to Libya now, even. Please do. Take BF with you.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

1 in 3 believe in a 911 conspiracy. That's 33% of the people.

1 in 3 believe 9-11 conspiracy

By Thomas Hargrove and Guido H. Stempel III

Scripps Howard News Service

DISCONTENT

The survey also found that 77 percent say their friends and acquaintances have become angrier with government recently and 54 percent say they, themselves, have become angrier - both record levels.

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9-11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9-11 attacks were "an inside job" - the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet - quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...08030348/-1/all

Are going to say that 33% of Americans are crazy?

[Captain Liger 0]

Sounds like they polled the populace over at Bryce.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

It's okay Captain Liger, you don't have to believe as I believe. It's okay. War Eagle!

[MDM4AU 332]

Are going to say that 33% of Americans are crazy?

Well...maybe not a full 33%

An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.

National Institute of Mental Health

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I take medication for mine, but I still believe in the conspiracy, whatever the result.

Cheney did it, Bush is clueless.