The crux of the argument from Bush supporters on Iraq

I agree with Frank. John Kerry is going to win, and decidedly.

And why? Because the Rightwingers are now that desperate to do this:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-sinclair9oct09,1,4817545.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The old saying if you repeat it enough people will belief it is true, the Democrats have been pushing this line of 9/11 and Saddam for so long that people have come to believe it. When did Bush say this? Bush has said that Saddam had ties to terrorism (which is a fact) and nothing more. It is the democrats that have fostered this belief that Saddam had ties to 9/11.

Baldimo, It's very evident to this observer that your perceptions differ from many people about why people still believe there is a connection between Saddam and 9-11. Bush's continued repetition of Saddam and 9-11 reinforces this falsehood. It's not the democrats pushing this lie. Show us credible sources for your claim that democrats are pushing this lie.
**************
Specials > Buildup in the Gulf
from the March 14, 2003 edition

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.


Related stories

03/04/03

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.

In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq. But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.

Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.

This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don't rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.

The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."

Future fallout

In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.

"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over."

Antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg says it's important to understand why public opinion appears to be playing out differently in the US and Europe. In fact, both peoples express a desire to work through the UN. But the citizens get different messages from their leaders. "Americans have been told by their president [that Hussein is] a threat to security, and so they believe that," says Mr. Ellsberg. "It's rather amazing, in light of that, that so many Americans do want this to be authorized by the UN. After all, the president keeps saying we don't have to ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves."

• Staff writers Liz Marlantes and Faye Bowers contributed to this report.

The neo-con propaganda machine doesn't seem to concern itself with credibility... they make outrageous claims at will without any basis... then accuse the dems of having made the statements!


"Gee, d'ya think anyone will notice?"

MILLIONS have noticed.

Find the place Bush said Saddam was in volved in 9/11?

As stated he ahs made the claim, which was true, that Saddam had ties to terrorism. See you are tryng to push the lie. Even to the point where you have begun to beleive it yourself.

Iraq was linked to 911.

Friday, Jan. 23, 2004 9:17 p.m. EST
Kay Replacement Corroborated Iraq-9/11 Link

The investigator picked by the CIA to replace David Kay as head of the U.S. team in Iraq hunting for weapons of mass destruction has told British reporters that he saw terrorists training near Baghdad in airplane hijack techniques resembling those used in the 9/11 attacks.

In a November 2001 account to the London Observer, Charles Duelfer, the former No. 2 United Nations weapons inspector who was appointed Thursday to head the U.S.'s Iraq Survey Group, corroborated the testimony of Iraqi military defectors who said they helped train radical Muslim recruits to hijack U.S. airliners aboard a Boeing 707 fuselage parked at the terrorist training camp Salman Pak.

At the time the London Observer reported:

"Duelfer said he visited Salman Pak several times, landing by helicopter. He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors. The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counter-terrorist training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter,'" Duelfer told the Observer.

"I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq," he added.

A month later Duelfer told USA Today, "We reported [the Salman Pak hijacking drills] at the time, but they've obviously taken on new significance" after the 9/11 attacks.

It's not clear whether part of Duelfer's new mandate as head of the ISG will be to pursue evidence tying Iraq to 9/11.

Duelfer told the Associated Press that CIA Director George Tenet assured him he wanted one thing: "That is the truth, wherever that lay."
---------------
You have to take the evidence and arrive at a sensible conclusion. You may not be able to prove the case in court-- But, you know what was going on at Salman Pak.

Hey...they are supposedly "lead" by a guy who actually went before the General Assembly of the UN to tell them that things were right on track in Iraq!!!!

Goebbels had nothing on this bunch.

It was a statement of fact?

Well known by whom, Magus and his friends?

Got me Dlowan. I misused the word.

Congratulations and I'm glad I could provide you with a chuckle, especially considering the miserable day you must have had yesterday.