Reply With Quote
It'd be nice if they asked people from where they got their information or upon what they based their conclusion.
...20% still believe Iraq had WMDs and that most of the hijackers came from - you guessed it, Iraq...
Poll: More Than 4 in 10 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved with 9/11
By E&P Staff
Published: June 25, 2007 8:20 AM ET
Editor and PublisherNEW YORK Nearly six years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., better than 4 in 10 Americans still wrongly believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in planning or carrying out the actions. Surprisingly, that number has even risen in the past two years, according to a Newsweek poll.
The belief that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, which was endorsed by Vice President Cheney and other Bush administration officials, was seen as a prime reason for broad public support for the attack on Iraq in 2003. Some have suggested that the media did not do enough to dispel this myth. President Bush and Cheney have belatedly declared that Iraq actually had nothing to do with it.
A Newsweek poll in September 2004 showed that 36% believed "Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001." Now the number in the same poll is 41%.
In a separate question, 20% said that "most" of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq. The correct answer, Saudi Arabia, was chosen by 43%.
Public awareness that Iraq did not possess WMD has gained ground, however, with only 20% now stating that it did have chemical or biological weapons when we invaded.
That's the 'fair and balanced' truth for you.....
It'd be nice if they asked people from where they got their information or upon what they based their conclusion.
Already beat you to it...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72350
Sorry, PP, didn't see that thread - still, I'm betting most of those 40% are FAUX News watchers..
So 40% believes Iraq was involved in 9/11 and 36% believe the US Government was involved. Assuming no duplication within those two groups (and not counting those who believe it was carried out by Martians, Canadians or Scientologists), that's 76% of the country.
..about the same percentages that believe in UFO's...fortunately, we don't vote based on our UFOology..
the dubya/ head/neo- /Repug lies of Saddam-WTC and Saddam-AQ and Saddam-mushroom-cloud-threat were repeated ad nauseam.
Sheeple/rabble and Bible-thumpers are so ing stupid.
Thomas Jefferson said the best defense of democracy and freedom against tyranny was an informed populace.
One man, head, has moved the country far into tyranny, intimidation of free press and freedom of expression, and into an impenetrable jungles of lies.
I think a lot of people are just confused, I mean, why would we preventively attack a country that had little or nothing to do with 911, right?
Besides, Saddam was Muslim, the terra'ist where Muslim...Muslims hate Christians cause the Bible says so.....
Funny thing is that none of the conservative hosts I listen to never say Saddam was a part of 9/11. I too, wonder where this information is coming from.
As for WMD... There has been proof it existed, and small quan ies of old stock were actually found.
Too many times, polls are 'pushed' with certain ideas. I have a hard time believing such reports of an editor when he doesn't source his so-called facts.
How many times has the mainstream media pushed the idea that conservatives believed Saddam was involved with 9/11 when we only believe he as loose ties to Bin Laden?
The media sets such misconceptions up frequently, then suggests we are ignorant when they show the part untrue we didn't believe anyway.
If anyone can find the exact wording of the questions, I think that would be appropriate to filter the merit of this poll and conclusion.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-25-2007 at 06:51 PM. Reason: critical typo: changed "ever" to "never"
I agree, Dan, too many dumb s still trust dubya to have done the right thing.
The lazy, naive bas s think:
"If dubya started a ing war, he must have had good reason(s), right?
Hey, let's go shopping!"
.... even after ALL the "justifications" turned out to be bull .
Stuff buried from the Iraq-Iran war is not a 'immenent threat'. None of it was useable.As for WMD... There has been proof it existed, and small quan ies of old stock were actually found.
There's no doubt that Saddam possessed WMD's, maybe even used some in GW1, but by 2003 that stock was long-gone...
Guilt by association my guess....some conservative talk-show pundits have sold people on the idea that Saddam was shielding at least some of the 911 conspirators, maybe even financing them or providing strategic aid...none of it is true...Funny thing is that none of the conservative hosts I listen to ever say Saddam was a part of 9/11. I too, wonder where this information is coming from.
Yes and no. Shielding hostiles, yes. Financial aid, indirectly and possible without his knowledge. Problem is, the media changes important distinctions of words.
Agreed. However, there are not only the reports of General Sada which tells us what happened to the WMD, but do ents that were supporting certain facts of his chain of people to Bin Laden. The millions (or hundreds k?) of pages are still not close to complete on being translated.
Come on, even the Bush administration stopped trying to prop up the al-Qaeda connection myth.
"Funny thing is that none of the conservative hosts I listen to never say Saddam was a part of 9/11."
head asserted the Saddam-AQ link (thereby Saddam-AQ-OBL-WTC link) long after the 9/11 commission and anybody else (outside of head cesspool of neo- liars) found NO Saddam-AQ-WTC (worth starting a war over). Even dubya had to contradict Saddam-WTC bull .
Probably because they were being misquoted in what they were saying. There were no direct connections, however there was a chain of people who mediated between both. The media tried to twist this into saying the Bush administration claimed a connection between 9/11 and Saddam, which of course president Bush never said. They insert a false claim so they can debunk it.Whi is -head? You?
If you cannot maintain at least some decency, I will use the ignore option if it exists in this forum. I think it’s reasonable for people to let loose a bit of profanity once in a while, but yeo go overboard with your disrespect.
Duh.... they didn't find a Saddam to 9/11 connection because it wasn't there. Can you show me a quote stating there was such a connection please?
Why are those of you opposed to the war only bringing up the weak reasons and make it appear as if they are the only reasons? There were several other reasons why we went into Iraq.
nobody listens to the U.N. resolutions, and Saddam was complying with mandatory inspection requirements when the U.S. decided to bomb Baghdad anyway.Why are those of you opposed to the war only bringing up the weak reasons and make it appear as if they are the only reasons? There were several other reasons why we went into Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...eda/index.html
Now why would they back off that? He certainly wasn't misquoted there?
And why did Bush wait until September 2003 to explicitly state the following?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
Why was it so difficult for him to spit out those 14 words? Is he not a plain speaker? Was the concept too hard for him to grasp? Was the entire administration unaware of the confusion a great number of Americans had regarding Saddam and 9/11?
Or was it easier to let this kind of obfuscation from Cheney ride to confuse the issue and let citizens think Saddam was behind 9/11 until well after the invasion?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html
Please tell me what Cheney meant by that, since he knew and you know that the geographic base of the terrorists was Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 06-26-2007 at 05:11 AM.
My God Chump... You are seruiously daft.
None of those links contradict what I said.
A connection between Saddam and terrorists DOES NOT mean a planning acting between Saddam and 9/11.
The third link is wrong where it says:The report did state a connection, and the report also stated no connection between 9/11 and Saddam. The author has it wrong. Maybe I should say it's misleading. Iraq and Bin Laden were not planning anything together. They did have communications however.The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda
Look at this nice page someone put together:
Questions and Observations
And this beauty:
The 9/11 Commission Report
A few highlights from the 9/11 report:
Page 58 - Bin Laden built his Islamic army with groups in various countries, including Iraq.
Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad con federation. In Sudan, he established an “Islamic Army Shura” that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea.
Page 61 - Bin Laden willing to explore a relationship with Iraq.
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
Page 61 - Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting activities against Saddam; Reports indicate Saddam may have supported, or at least tolerated, Ansar al-Islam.
To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
Page 61 - Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, and asked for assistance. No evidence of an Iraqi response. This was not the last attempt.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
Page 66 - Iraq took the initiative to contact Al Qaeda.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Page 125 - Clarke points out that Iraq had discussed hosting Bin Laden.
Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi.
Page 128 - Clarke suggests that a chemical factory is probably the result of an Iraq-Al Qaeda agreement. Chemical evidence backs that up.
My God Wild Cobra...you are seriously daft.
You never addressed what I wrote.
No it isn't.The third link is wrong where it says:
Thanks for throwing a bunch of on the page in an attempt to avoid answering my questions.Blah, blah blah
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040614-20.html
Now there is no way he can be misquoted here, since it's his own site. Cheney said Saddam himself had long established ties with al Qaeda. Clearly nothing you vomited up above shows that. What's up with that?
My God....
Ties do not equal collaberation!
So what. They are associates. That doesn't mean they are in bed together. Why does the left try to imply that the right says they conspire together just because the communicate?
That article also disputes none of my claims.
I think you need an English refresher course.
Words have meanings.
With all the crap you're throwing out, I missed addressing some. So what. Since you ask;
I don’t know the reason. I could only guess, I’m not a mind reader. My point is that he never said Saddam was behind 9/11. Maybe there was no need to clarify that until the media kept implying the administration was equating the specific connection.
Note: It is the media implying the direct connection, never will you find a quote fron the president or vice president saying there was an operational connection between 9/11 and Saddam
Again, I’m no mind reader. It was never confusing to me. I think it was only confusing to those listening to the lies from the left.
It was an obfuscation by the media! It is the media that perpetrated the lie. Not the Bush administration. I would say it’s possible that Cheney took advantage of the confusion however.
Again, I’m not a mind reader. However, I believe he was talking about the money that Saddam would pay to the families of suicide bombers. With him gone, this money would no longer be a factor. It appears that though was in error.
WC is quibbling with semantics. "ties" vs "co-operation"
So "ties" with AQ/OBL are sufficient to start a war?
Paying bombers families is sufficient to start a war and waste 10s of 1000s of US casualties and a $T?
Here's a good article that shows how head lead the campaign of lies and confusion to justify his war for oil and for financing $Bs in profits for Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. And as late as Sep 06, was still lying his evil ass off, and blaming the CIA for intel failures, in continuing his campaign of lying and confusion
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=120112
For the sheeple and rabble and other dumb s, Saddam was linked to AQ FOR YEARS after 9/11, AQ was OBL, and OBL hit WTC. The association of Saddam and WTC is clearly one easy to make for non-thinkers.
The other association was Saddam was an international terrorist threatening the USA, and therefore a legit target in dubya's war on terror. ie, again Saddam=terror, OBL=terror/WTC, Saddam = WTC.
And here's a typical instance of rabble/sheeple rousers making the "confirmed" link between Saddam and 9/11, with NO denials from the WH. The WH's non-denial makes them complicit in the lie.
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/linkconfirmed.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1125...d_the_iraq_war
to note:
"
The Big Lie, first coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf,was made famous by Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the Third Reich. The idea was simple enough: Tell a whopper (the larger the better) often enough and most people will come to accept it as the truth. During World War II, the predecessor of the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services, described how the Germans used the Big Lie: "[They] never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
This is, in fact, just what the Bush administration has been doing ever since 9/11. As a result, in 2005, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that 56% of Americans still thought Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction "shortly before the war," and 60% still believed Iraq had provided "direct support" to al-Qaeda prior to the war. In June 2006, Fox News ran a story once again dramatizing the supposed links between 9/11 and Iraq. And, as recently as July, 2006, a Harris poll found that 64% of those polled "say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda."
"
===================
After 9/11, dubya and head abused 9/11 and their war on terror every time they openend their mouths, to justify everything from the Iraq invasion to all their totally non-war-on-terror programs, ie "never allow the public to cool off" because head and his AIE/PNAC/neo- cabal had decided in the late 90s to go after Iraq. The WTC attack that head allowed was the opening head needed to drive into Iraq and grab the oil, enriching the oilcos eventually, and enriching Halliburton, Blackwater, and all his buddies in the military/defense industries.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
