Interesting piece from the Christian Science Monitor... from 6 months ago. ________________ 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. 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."
One point I just have to make here, and it's motivated by a combination of frustration and bemusement; For those who supported the war who are now re-positioning themselves on this issue with phrases like " He never actually said....at least he's retracting...all it took to see no connection was an examination of the facts.." etc., a few questions; Weren't those of us who questioned our veracity on this pre-war ridiculed? Weren't we asked who we'd rather trust, the President, or Osama/Saddam? Weren't we told that it was obvious that we had evidence, but that we clearly couldn't compromise our intel sources, and how a child could understand that? And the fact that he is retracting this now is not a genuine apology/admission of error...as is made clear by every media take on this, including MSNBC, which is hardly 'liberal'...this is part of the pre-election campaign CYA. There was no admission that 7-% of the public bought the argument, and as said on Countdown, they didn't get that Saddam was linked to 9-1 from the Enquirer. Even if this were a genuine admission of error/guilt, which it is not, that would be at best a small concession when you consider that this was another lie which got us into a war. People act like a war is an everday event which needs as little reason to enter into as a pick up game, when it is and should be the last possible resport demanding the gravest possible reasons and undertaken after the mose extreme examination. None of those things apply here, as is becoming clearer and clearer. Bush and co. clearly gave the impression that Saddam was linked to 9-11. They also 'revealed' pre-war that there evidence to same was top secret, and couldn't be divulged for fear of compromising sources. Remember all the talk that Blair had been made privy, which was voiced as the reason he was fully behind the war? 70% of the American population bought it...the rest of the world didn't, and asked to see the proof, which if you'll recall, had us bristling at the time with righteous indignation. The main thrust for the war was WMD; there is no dount about this because Bush said several times that if Saddam disarmed there would be no war. Saddam said several times that he had disamred, we chose not to believe him. The individual on the planet who knows the most about this, Hans Blix, now says that Saddam was probably telling the truth. We have et to find anything, and will likely find no more than paperwork. The second main thrust of the war was the 9-11 connection, especially when combined with number 1 for fear-inspiring effect. There never was any evidence for this, as those of us opposed always said, but the people chose to beleive in the integrity of our leadership rather than demand the proof for themselves. Now we know that that too was a mistake. There are a few who believed that the sole remaining 'reason' for the war, that Saddam is a bad guy, was in and of itself reason enough to go to war. The problems and ramifications of this are manifest, but suffuce it to say that pre-war that argument wasn't enough for the vast majority. It is great that Saddam is gone from power, but there is a difference between a positive effect of a war, and a justifiable reason for going to war. As DaDakota said pre-war, if we are just taking out bad guys or countries who don't like us that's a bad, bad sign. This war was not justified...not as far as the argument given to us...not as far as justifiable war...not as far as a reasoned policy which could and will be applied universally, not selectively, as several instances, Liberia etc. demonstrate. For those who want to try and spin an argument that it was, go ahead...the numbers ( 70% believe Saddam behind 9-11 despite no evidence for example) show that many Americans would rather believe anything which leaves them concluding that we are in the right than look at the facts and conclude otherwise...so you'll probably find fertile soil for your seeds of spin. But the truth, as they say, is out there.
Thanks for the post, rimrocker. Great points, MacBeth. That Bush is trying to weasel out of this by saying he didn't EXPLICITLY link the two is total horse manure. He did everything to encourage that train of thought, and to make that connection in people's heads. That's the lowest form of manipulation, and he tricked the American people into a war we can't leave. Americans are dying EVERY DAY because of these lies. FIGHT BACK, people! Those are your brothers and sisters over there! Dying for the lies of one back-stabbing, manipulating traitor!
Cheney was just on "Meet the Press" Sunday morning claiming that the meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official was evidence of a link between Saddam and the 9-11 terrorists. He also mentioned that those two trailers they found were WMD mobile labs. Did anyone else see this?
That's were he also claimed that the Iraq was the "heart of the base" for the people who assaulted us on 9-11, in other words, where he flat out lied.
This is exactly why citizens of this country deserve to question the actions of their government at anytime. It's about time that we hold them accountable too.
Great points MacBeth. We need to realize that this is not a democrat-vs-republican, left-vs-right, liberal-vs-conservative, us-vs-them issue. This is about questioning the people in positions of power, regardless of their political affiliations and ideology. We were mislead by our leaders. We must hold them accountable and not let them weasle out of this through partisan politics. Lets not change our individual principles, stances and arguments based on whether or not the "villain" is on "our side." This administration has repeatedly lied and will continue to do so until we put an end to this. Moreover, if we continue accept this kind of behavior from our leaders, every future administration--democrat or republican--will see it in their favor to engage in such egregious falsehoods.
ooops. Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate _______________ March 18, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: ) Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
/delurk It is posted at the white house's official site, so I would say yes, it is genuine. One thing I notice in this thread...the conspicous abscense of T_J and texx.. that speaks volumes to me. /relurk
The evidence that illustrates the White House's lies and misrepresentations is just piling up. Of course everyone misspeaks, makes mistakes, or gets the occasional piece of bad intel, but this is a pattern of deception, and outright lies, and spin, that, I would think, speaks plainly for itself. However, everytime I think that, some people amaze me by trying to rationalize the administrations statements.
