Your political analysis seems as faulty as your statistical analysis! Below you tried to argue from a faulty premise - so obvioulsy your conclusions could not be accurate. You have the same problem here. Your assumption is that any evidence of terrorist connection with Iraq ties Iraq to 9/11 in some significant way. But here too, your wrong.



Saddam sent some cash to Palastine, but not much - our "allies" and personal family friends of the Bush's, the Saudi's sent more. Saddam was a secularist - he openly despised the religious convictions used by Osama.



If you look long enough you'll find connections with any group in the middle east. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Osama - is Rumsfeld part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? According to your logic he must be.



Osama's family has been business partners with George Bush Sr for many years. Osama's family gave George jr his big business break as his oil company faced bankruptcy - does this connection make the president part of the terrorist plot?



The USA trained Osama in Afgahnistan, maybe the US CIA is part of the attacks too, huh?



For those who are desperate to justify the wasting of our young people's lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on a useless war the info you mention will be very valuable. For those who want to try to understand the real reasons we went to war, your info is just a pointless distraction. The RNC has tried to make a big deal out of this stuff for months - but it all adds up to very little.



By the way, did you figure out where your "statistical" analysis went wrong yet? When you do, you'll understand better where your political analysis did too!

[ Show Entire Thread ]