Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

oe, Sad to say, but most Americans still believe Saddam was behind 9-11.

That's because they don't read Soros or any of his media, and only believe Bush and his henchmen/women.

That was funny!

Come on, oe. An important field of battle with terrorists right now is Iraq, but Bush never accused Iraq or Saddam Hussein of being behind 9/11. This argument is old news. The arguments were made and Congress voted for authorization, including Ms. Clinton, and she had all the expert advice she could find, she said so.

Then they haven't listened to the administration. I have and I have never heard them say that and I have never believed that.

No cupie doll for okie.


Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 by the Associated Press
9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
by Hope Yen

WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.


Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) Gov. Thomas Kean looks on at the beginning of their final two-day hearing at the National Transportation Security Board conference center in Washington, June 16, 2004. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks began its final hearings on Wednesday before delivering its findings at the end of next month. REUTERS/Larry Downing

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''

There you go. He never actually said it, right?

Likewise, Kerry said that there was no reason that American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night. But he never actually called all American soldiers war criminals.

And likewise, Senator Durbin said that if you read the accounts of this FBI agent, you would believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets or some mad regime. But he never actually called all American soldiers war criminals.


Now, you can disagree with all of these statements. But shouldn't it be a little bit important to go by what actually has been said?

Has anybody put two and two together yet? Is there a reasonable explanation why most Americans still think Saddam was attached to 9-11?

Interesting argument.

So, if you believe that Democrats called all American soldiers war criminals, can we assume that you have never listened to those Democrats?

And C I
The so called Democracy sellers/ spreaders around the globe highlight the rule of law.
Sadam was charged for many offences and the first charge was prooved while the second one waits for the global attention he was hanged.
Of cource by Bindladen's adminstration with roughly 150000 GI's from USA.
If only - I repeat if only Saddam had a chance to face all the charges by the same puppet court many of the lovely people would have faced the same fate.
Ask any legal luminaries around the globe.
Truth hurts and absolute truth irks

There was a connection claimed by the administration between Hussein and Al Qaida, but none claimed for 9/11. We've known this for a long, long time. Nothing new here. But people aren't stupid, and they know all of these things are interconnected.

Some people will never "get it."



from the March 14, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
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.

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.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Just so we understand the depth of your reading comprehension troubles, c.i. ... are you suggesting the above statement equates to the Bush Administration saying "Saddam was behind 9-11"?

For Ticomaya who seems unable to comprehend this sentence:

"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.

For c.i., who seems incapable of understanding this sentence:

"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president."

But he implied it. Everytime he spoke of 9/11 he would mention AQ and Saddam Hussein. Why do you think over 60% of the Americans believed Hussein helped plan 9/11? Because everyone in the Bush administration would always bring up Hussein's name when talking about AQ and 9/11.

Word association.

You know that trick Tico.

The trick was used (Conflation is the term) specifically so that people like Tico could argue the exact argument he's making, on technical grounds.

You'll note that Tico doesn't argue that Bush intentionally conflated the two.

Cycloptichorn

This comment, though in large sized font, is dishonest, unprincipled and demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity.

Ticomaya is exactly correct, Bush never accused Hussein for 9/11. The reason people in this country connect Iraq and 9/11 as a sort of broad context is because people aren't stupid, they understand Hussein's support and connection to terrorist groups, and 9/11 was caused by terrorists. There were many reasons for entering Iraq, but one was the mistrust of Hussein, as he was a rogue dictator that could not be trusted, and had defied the U.N. and the world community, and there was a fear that if he had WMD, it would wind up in the hands of terrorists. He had used them before, and it is possible he was behind the anthrax attacks. People know all of this, and despite the spin of the Democrats for years, you cannot wipe out what people remember in terms of what did happen.