Im not so sure that was a concern at all of ours considering our thumbing our nose at them to move out on our terms. At that moment I think we executed and labeled them as ineffective and toothless. Just pointing that out.

Glen:
I think that that is not true at all, not calling you a liar but we have already shown that simply stating something in the presses repeatedly is effective and the admin. repeatedly harked on the meeting between the 9/11 operative and the top level intelligence people of Iraq in Austria. As a matter of fact, This was stated during the VP debate. That was an insinuation, that IMO the smart guys in the admin. knew would lead a great majority of Americans to connect the dots that the two "had a relationship". No one noticed the printed edits the next day from the admin.

Biggles:
when you start a retort by purposely misspelling a persons name, as opposed to a non-pol thread, your initial disrespect isn't going to get them to take you more seriously, if they ever would anyways (i dont know)

I'm pretty sure I started that. In fact I know I did. It's just that Biggle's opinions often make me Giggle.



I appreciate you not calling me a liar. This is something that we simply have different opinions on. Some believe that the Admin insinuated that Saddam was linked to 9/11, and that was enough for Americans to jump to the conclusion.

I don't believe the admin insinuated there was any Iraq connection to 9/11. The closest they came was citing the, eventually withdrawn/discredited report that one of the 19 terrorists met with an Iraqi intel official some two years before the attacks. All that does is say that an Al Qaeda operative and an Iraqi Intel person met. It's an allegation that they had ties. It doesn't connect any of the dots required to put Saddam in the loop regarding 9/11. It simply wasn't an administration claim.

Oh and Bigglesworth. You are correct. I had forgotten that toward the end of Clinton's presidency Iraq had so hampered the inspection process that we recalled the inspectors, and bombed some targets. I still don't believe President Clinton did anything effective with regard to keeping Iraq in line. He simply maintained the status quo.

Also, given what we know in retrospect, those bombings probably didn't hit anything anyway. Bad intel regardind WMD, you know.

President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address:


It's easy to google a number of lists of quotes from senior administration officials linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda. Since the U.S. public already knew that 9/11 = Al-Qaeda, it's not that hard of a connection to draw.

Given this, then, at the very least you have to admit that while admin official might not have technically linked 9/11 to Iraq, they did deliberately spread enough misinformation so that such a conclusion would be drawn.

Or not. Given that you sniped one line out of a speech, and decided on your own how you would interpret it. Let's try again.


Again more of we don't want Saddam to provide terrorists with WMDs. My stated position.

I think you miss my point. If you take all the instances where someone in the admin places Saddam & 9/11 in the same sentence, or Saddam and Al-Qaeda in the same sentence, eventually you get to the point where the admin is tacitly suggesting a link there.

But perhaps this administration is just horribly misunderstood? ;)

In another thread though we extrapolated, via Dutch, that Perception is reality and we all agreed that that is true, for most Americans in the information society. So, when the VP said this on TV, and it was entered into papers everywhere, the later whisper of a retraction does not combat or let off the hook that the seeds were planted prior to going to war and the retraction came after the consequences were rolling forward. You cant have it both ways.

I still maintain that almost no one believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. I keep hearing people on the left cite that as fact(that the Admin confused the Public), but really anyone actually paying attention to the news couldn't have come to, or even reasonably jumped to, that conclusion.

Not to mention there was lively debate on what the various evidence presented meant, and how crediblie it was ... there was plenty of cover for the Dems to hide behind if they wanted to object to the war, but they didn't.

but most, most people aren't as educated on politics, either side, as we are. AAMOF, in some past threads we have shown that while there may be a spectrum of intellect on the awareness scale BUT most Americans DID hear that and Im sure I could find a poll that backs the fact that a GREAT deal Americans did connect those dots and far fewer would've heard or considered the retractions. Whether or not the poll is believed is a whole different ball game. Your assumption, and the reality of Americans today regarding attention span, intellect on politucal matters, and care I think are not in line and I would like to say probably just help make your point. The fact of the matter is, the admin did Tacitly implicate Saddam and when the evidence did not bear out they would whisper the retraction, and then their pundits would continue to pound the message long after the retraction was out. What you say, on this matter, is simply not accurate when accepting the perception is many people's reality. maybe not true but their reality nonetheless.

not debating this, moreso debating American's acceptance of rhetoric and not hearing the retractions THAN connecting dots....its really not a partisan issue Im talking about here.

Here's a link to a report from the University of Maryland that contradicts your claim:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...a_Oct03_pr.pdf

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. What I am objecting to is the idea that the GOP tricked the public into accepting this war. There was always an opposition to this war, much more so than in Gulf War I. The Dems in Congress ignored them as much as the Republicans.

I nearly mentioned that poll in my response above. It isn't directly from the University of Maryland. It comes from a VERY liberal organization affiliated with UM, PIPA. I'm familiar with the poll. It basically claims that Republicans are morons. IIRC it claims that something like 60+% of Republicans believe that Iraq was responsible for the September 11th attacks. I think that is simply so far from reality that it should stretch the limits of those who would even want to believe it, like yourself. At the time the poll was taken, I don't think you could find six Republicans on this board who believed that Iraq was behind the September 11th attacks. I doubt you could find one, but I wouldn't rule that out, because there are freaks everywhere.

PIPA simply doesn't have the same reputation that Zogby or even Newsweek has for polling. The results simply don't hold water. The results seem outlandish enough to call for a snopesing.

Care to point out where it says Republicans are morons? The bulk of the article mentions news outlets. There is only one paragraph mentioning political leanings, and it states that significant numbers of all political persuasions had the misconceptions. Hardly a Republican bashing at all.

Here's an article from just last year where the VP was still harping on an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...iraq.al.qaeda/

Harris Poll, 2/18/05:


Washington Post Poll, 9/6/03

Here's the only poll I could dig up. Unfortunately, I have no idea how reputable it is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...data082303.htm

SI

Here is a full list of polls:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...vasion_of_iraq

and the Flasch186 poll (basically my marketing degree and an ability to remember and come to a conclusion based on all of the "touches" I have to outside society (meaning what I see and hear) says that it is plainly obvious that joe american (not the pol. junkies - like myself [why isnt there a good sim for politics?]) heard the rhetoric but rarely heard the retractions and continue to believe the inertia even when it has been debunked by the main stream sources (partially because the partisan hacks like Rush and Sean continue to bang the drum even after information has been debunked).

I recalled the PIPA poll showing that 60+ percent of Republicans believed there was a connection between Iraq and September 11th. It appears that instead it declares that close to 70% of all Americans believed it. That is even less credible.

My argument that that poll didn't hold water is the same today as it was when the poll was released. I hear all of this about how polls indicate that huge portions of our population were hoodwinked into having this belief, that I have yet to see anyone credible state as their own. If it was such a freaking popular belief, more people here or elsewhere would be espousing it. That simply isn't my experience.

I simply refuse to believe the poll. Poll results can be spun, especially when the organization doing the polling has an agenda. PIPA does. All that has to happen is ask a question that requires a low threshold of belief to generate a positive response. Like..."Do you believe that Iraq had ties to the Terror organization that attacked the United States on September 11th?" or "Do you believe there is evidence that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda?" If someone believes there is an iota of evidence, they give a possitive response. Sum up all of the affirmitive responses, and declare that that percentage of people believed Saddam was behind it all.



The bit about Cheney last year...I thought we were discussing what the Administration said leading up to the invasion.

Dola,

Does anyone believe that I was one of the folks who said I wouldn't give Bush props for his recent declaration?

alright Im going to go ask my cleaning LAdy, she could care less about Politics and find out what she thinks TODAY.

Alright, vickie, she's like a second mom in that she keeps our life sane, she does so much more than just cleaning, anyways (Ill have her around forever), anyways. ...she thinks the following:

Iraq and Al Qaeda were related
9/11 and Alqaeda and IRaq were related
some of the people who were on the planes were Iraqis (she said some were saudis too)
she says she doesnt really pay much attention to politics (but her mom does)
she says now were "liberatin' 'em"


BTW while she pulled up to my hosue today she hit my mailbox. I dont know how to fixit other than to pour some qukcrete down it since now its so wobbly.

So Blen, what about the NYT/CBS poll, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, the Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey, the CNN/Time poll, the Princeton Survey Research Associates, the CBS news poll, the Washington Post survey, and the Harris poll that I posted that all same the smae thing? Are they all liberal organizations with an agenda that are out to make you look bad?

I really don't understand the point of this debate. Even if every stupid American believed that Saddam had ordered 9/11, what would that prove?

And anyway, there obviously is some relationship between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

islamic terrorism
regional instability in the middle east
americans now being targeted by islamist organizations

It's not a direct connection, obviously. But what are we getting at here? I don't understand what you all are trying to convince each other of.

probably nothing

Well, Bush/Cheney/aides kept insisting that Iraq and September 11th were related and that it was in our best interests to stop him because we might be in danger. They then parlayed that into public support to go to war. If the public got lied to about that, which is looking a lot like the case, then I think people have a right to be angry about this. If the pretexts to going to this war were false and deliberately false, then that's a problem. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

SI

more props to Bush and the Admin for finally coming to their senses, this time on the McCain torture ban:

Bush Accepts McCain's Ban on Torture

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -
President Bush embraced Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects on Thursday, reversing months of opposition that included White House veto threats.
ADVERTISEMENT

Bowing to pressure from the Republican-run Congress and abroad, the White House signed off on the proposal after a fight that pitted the president against members of his own party and threatened to further tarnish a U.S. image already soiled by the abuses at
Iraq's
Abu Ghraib prison.

Bush said the ban and accompanying interrogation standards will "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."

After months of fierce negotiations, McCain declared "a done deal" that he said shows that the United States "upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are."

"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," the Arizona Republican said while appearing alongside the president in the Oval Office to announce the agreement.

The agreement still needs to be approved by Congress, whose GOP leaders hope to adjourn for the year in a few days.

The deal keeps McCain's original proposal, which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate and endorsed by the House. One of the final stumbling blocks in negotiations was removed when language was added allowing
CIA interrogators the same legal protections as those afforded to military interrogators.

Those rules say the accused can defend themselves by arguing it was reasonable for them to believe they were obeying a legal order. The government also would provide counsel for accused interrogators.

That language was McCain's own counterproposal to the White House's early calls, pushed by Vice President
Dick Cheney, for an exemption for CIA interrogators. The administration had also sought some protection from prosecution for such agents accused of violating the standards.

Also added, officials said, was a statement explicitly rejecting immunity from civil or criminal lawsuits for those who violate the standards.

After the deal was announced, Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would block completion of one of the two defense bills that includes the ban unless he got White House assurances that "the same high level of effective intelligence gathering" would be achieved if the agreement became law.

But Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., Hunter's counterpart in the Senate, was on board and appeared with Bush and McCain in the Oval Office.

"We're going to get there," Warner predicted.

House and Senate officials said the McCain provisions were likely to remain in the must-pass $453 billion defense spending bill that provides $50 billion for the Iraq war and that Congress planned to approve before adjourning for the year.

The agreement was reached a day after the House — in bipartisan fashion — endorsed McCain's proposal. That vote put both GOP-controlled chambers behind McCain by veto-proof majorities, putting pressure on the White House to reach an agreement.

It came as the president finds himself defending his wartime policies daily amid declining public support for the Iraq war and his own low standing in opinion polls. The United States also is feeling pressure and facing questions from its European allies over its treatment of detainees held abroad.

The Bush administration had long said a ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading practices did not legally apply to suspects held overseas. During a trip to Europe last week, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice was pressed repeatedly on the topic, finally saying that "as a matter of U.S. policy," such treatment was banned for U.S. personnel wherever they are.

The agreement reached Thursday would put the prohibition into law.

The White House initially sought to kill the proposal altogether, arguing that the ban and interrogation limits could tie the president's hands during wartime. The administration later switched gears and Cheney made a rare personal appeal to all GOP senators for a CIA exemption. Later, the administration sought some protection from prosecution for accused interrogators.

Congressional sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of the ban, and McCain, a former Navy pilot who was held and tortured for five and a half years in Vietnam, adopted the issue.

The legislation would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. It also would require that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners in Defense Department facilities.

The provision that was added was modeled after the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says military personnel accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a reasonable person could have concluded they were following a lawful order. Those rights — and the right to legal counsel — would be extended to CIA interrogators under the agreement.

Bush said the agreement ensures "protections for those who are the front line of fighting the terrorists."

McCain said there were "legitimate concerns raised by the administration concerning the rights of interrogators," leading to the additional language.

The Senate had included McCain's provisions in two defense bills but the House omitted them from their versions. Both bills have since been stalled.

The ban defines "cruel, inhuman and degrading" as treatment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution as defined in the U.N. convention against torture.

Been busy. Too busy to mess with this now.

Gigglesworth...I don't have the time to dig into those polls, but I don't think they show anywhere near the outrageousness of the PIPA poll.

Flasch..I'm surprised you're able to find someone who thinks Iraq was involved in 9/11. Actually my planned response to your mission to ask your house keeper was "Like you're an unbiased source." =) Honestly though she doesn't pay attention to politics or news, so how can Bush be blamed for these misconceptions?

On the PIPA poll. Use some common sense. If close to 70% of the people, not just Republicans(another PIPA poll shows that over 75% of Republicans/Bush Supporters believe that WMD were found in Iraq, that was the Republicans are stupid poll I was referring to.) We would have seen these people. It has to be obvious to anyone that the absence of people actually laying claim to a belief that 70% of us supposedly have is somewhat contradictory to the poll results.

There had to be some gerrymandering of the responses. I'm saying the only way they could come up with the numbers they have is by either using very subjective language or by grouping questions questions together to the extent that if you believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts that they lumped you into the misperception bunch. It's not like this is the first time this has happened. Anyone remember the poll that declared in big headlines that more than half of Americans believed we should eliminate some civil rights for muslims? A bit of delving into the actual data showed otherwise.

If you have any doubts about the agenda of PIPA, all you have to do is read some of the reports for their interpretation. Bush supporters apparently suffer from a "cognitive dissonance" and a "resistance to information". Those are quotes.

Again, I have a hard time blaming the Presidnet for communicating a message to the American people that Saddam Hussein was behind September 11th...When the President has actually never made that claim.

The left says he communicated the message through inuendo, in some sort of verbal sleight of hand. All carried out by a public speaker who is known for stumbling about through his speeches more than Gerald Ford actually stumbled.

All of the "damning" quotes offfered up in this thread have been interpreted by the supporters of this theory in the way most favorable to them rather than the context in which they were offered. Bush has never proclaimed that Saddam was involved with or even knew about the plan for September 11th.

Blen, before you said that everyone took exception to:
Now you say it just isn't 'near the outrageousness of the PIPA poll'. So, to you, is the 30-50% of the population 'almost no one', or are you taking back your earlier statement?

...because she is thetype of person who watches the local news, sometimes. Catches snippets of this and that here and there. Which bolsters my statement that outside of the people like you and me who dig for more info. Those that simply pick the low hanging fruit and only catch the sound bites followed the rhetoric and their perception became their reality. Those types of people did not hear the apology, did not hear the retraction, do not hear the debunking....they only catch the press conference snippet, the headline of the paper (remember the FTU here is written at a 5th grade reading level, admittedly)....therefore the conclusions they draw are those the administration wants them to draw, ESPECIALLY during the election (remember our own VP made the statement during the debate) which was long after it had been categorically debunked. Im almost of the opinion that this is inarguable that those who do not dig deeper draw their conclusions for the common stream media, snippets, and sound bites and connect the dots. The question is, did ROVE (which I absolutely have no doubt he knows this) plan a media gameplan wherein the right dots would be connected? I believe he did.

your assuming that dots are not connected are saying that cognitive reasoning should not exist. People have different avbilities to reason and I would argue that the common people (as opposed to Political junkies when referencing politics) have about the same amount of reasoning, when it comes to issues that are not high on their priority or interest list. IOW, my reasoning is about the same as everyone else when it comes to weather for those of us who aren't weather junkies. I know where it's hot, I know where its cold but Im not really sure necessarily when why or how, and dont care. Our reasoning is basic. Most americans reasoning when it comes to politics is basic. They connect the dots that are laid out to them and dont dig to find those retractions or debunking. they dont have their TV on CNN or Foxnews all day.

So dont try to discount reasoning and say its not XY or Z's fault that reasoning exists. It is exactly the knowledge that it does which allows me to say, My neighbor has kids, my other neighbor is a pedophile, the first neighbor hates the second neighbor and wants to kill him.....and watch people make all sorts of assumptions and connect all kinds of dots but they dont see that the "pedophile" stole the first neighbors car and wrecked it without paying for the damages. They connected the dots I wantedthem to, because I want the pedophile pressured to move out.