Saddam and 9/11

[A_Wanderer]

78% of people believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks, what do people think created that impression in peoples minds?

poll information

 

[anitram]

78% of people believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks, what do people think created that impression in peoples minds?

Are you joking?

 

[indra]

This poll was taken in 2003. I wonder if the results would be the same if taken today? I would hope people would have learned they were dupe, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[BVS]

Funny thread.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Re: Re: Saddam and 9/11

Are you joking?

I assure you that I am not, and the reason will become clear in short time.

I strongly suggest that people study the dates of the poll and think about how the impression that led to the assumption was created.

 

[deep]

the majority of the people that voted for Bush in 2004

believed:

1. There was a direct BinLaden connection to Saddam

2. Saddam was involved or responsible for 911



my guess in where you are going?

is that it is the media's fauld
Their reporting led to these misimpressions

of course that is a load of crap


Perhaps you will enlighten us with
you thoughts here

or

is this a gotcha game?

 

[A_Wanderer]

My contention is that the figure given there had a lot to do with the creation of Saddam Hussein as enemy number 1 by the Clinton administration for eight years prior and that the assumption was maintained without the need for the Bush administration to tell people that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

 

[deep]

My contention is that the figure given there had a lot to do with the creation of Saddam Hussein as enemy number 1 by the Clinton administration for eight years prior and that the assumption was maintained without the need for the Bush administration to tell people that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

ridiculous


Saddam invaded Kuwait in 01


And when Oklahoma building was bombed

Saddam/ blur/ Muslims were assumed the attackers

then McVeigh was caught



911 happened and

and we had BinLaden on the map
remember Clinton had bombed his camp in Afghanistan

yes, Saddam was on the screen, too


but it was Cheney and his neocon machine that pushed the Saddam connection

perhaps you swallowed it

bringing Clinton in now is just plain neocon wishful thinking

or, more direct - crap.

no sale

but there may be takers

it is always a sale for some
if you can get wet Willy in the picture.

 

[anitram]

I honestly think it's absolutely ludicrous.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Clinton was right in the 1990's and there was no link between Iraq and September 11, that has consistently been my point of view.

Why did so many people instantly blame Saddam after the attacks? why was he bad guy number 1 in peoples minds? This occured before it could be spun.

By your logic the belief in connections between 9/11 and Saddam should have increased by the start of the war when this polling shows that it actually decreased.

 

[BVS]

By your logic the belief in connections between 9/11 and Saddam should have increased by the start of the war when this polling shows that it actually decreased.

The truth is a funny thing isn't.

Look back in here when the war started there were many of us in here that had to remind, shit we still have to remind many of those that support the war that Saddam wasn't involved.

But blaming Clinton...that's classic.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The basic policy towards Iraq was taken to the next level by this administration in pursuing military action. The public required relatively little convincing of Saddams supposed posession of WMD because through public statement by experts, politicians and actions by the regime the impression that he had them was entrenched, the reason that Saddam behaved in this manner has since become more clear - it was a ploy to keep the Iranians at bay until he could get sanctions lifted and restart his program.

In retrospect I think that something went seriously wrong with intelligence on Iraq and the shaping of policy. The fact that the Democrats sought a policy of containment and engaged in military strikes against facilities within the country and gave of very similar justifications for their policy as this Republican administration is a testament to that.

If roles were reversed then I guarantee that the Republicans would be doing the same damn thing and their scare quotes about Iraq could be brought up to haunt them.

 

[Rono]

Clinton was right in the 1990's and there was no link between Iraq and September 11, that has consistently been my point of view.

Why did so many people instantly blame Saddam after the attacks? why was he bad guy number 1 in peoples minds? This occured before it could be spun.

By your logic the belief in connections between 9/11 and Saddam should have increased by the start of the war when this polling shows that it actually decreased.

Because people wanted to have a scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks and Saddam happen to be around. Try to convince a bunch of people that they are wrong when they full off hate and revenge feelings they grab any excuse. And when people where not ready to go to war, they where labeled as anti american, not patriotic and saddam lovers. And who want to be that ?

 

[hiphop]

Why did so many people instantly blame Saddam after the attacks? why was he bad guy number 1 in peoples minds? This occured before it could be spun.

Not true. No one knew shit first. After two days it was about Bin Laden. This continued for a couple of weeks, then the US administration turned to Saddam. Which is the reason why everyone here (except of Blair and Berlusconi, who were good subordinates) was asking "huh? what does Bush want now?" -> Iraq war opposition.

Like deep said, Cheney et al made it up.

 

[AcrobatMan]

what hip hop said..

Saddam and 9/11 had NO connection whatsoever.

I dont how american people fell for it...

Cant they understand this?

all al-qaeda guys are in afghanistan and pakistan and some at other places...their financers are in europe

where does iraq come into picture

nowhere

 

[A_Wanderer]

They didn't fall for anything, they went with their gut feeling.

 

[hiphop]

They didn't fall for anything, they went with their gut feeling.

Aight, I´ll go with my gut feeling next time and bomb Sydney. There are some WMDs stockpiles in the opera house.

 

[financeguy]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Great thread, just great.

 

[Irvine511]

A_W, i think you're really smart, but it's thuddingly obvious that you don't live in the US.

 

[YBORCITY]

My contention is that the figure given there had a lot to do with the creation of Saddam Hussein as enemy number 1 by the Clinton administration for eight years prior and that the assumption was maintained without the need for the Bush administration to tell people that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

Wow!!! Thank You for enlightening me.



I know you REALLY don't believe this or do you?

 

[nbcrusader]

The truth is a funny thing isn't.

Look back in here when the war started there were many of us in here that had to remind, shit we still have to remind many of those that support the war that Saddam wasn't involved.

But blaming Clinton...that's classic.

Perhaps you care to show the methodology used by the GWB administration to create the impression out of nothing.

 

[BVS]

Perhaps you care to show the methodology used by the GWB administration to create the impression out of nothing.

Who said out of nothing?

Look you either dispell or spell out; GWB did neither, in fact they would place 9/11 and Saddam in the same paragraph during speeches.

This thread is just another attempt to blame someone other than GWB, and who best to blame but the closest liberal. It's pathetic.

 

[nbcrusader]

Who said out of nothing?

Look you either dispell or spell out; GWB did neither, in fact they would place 9/11 and Saddam in the same paragraph during speeches.

This thread is just another attempt to blame someone other than GWB, and who best to blame but the closest liberal. It's pathetic.

Pathetic? Pathetic that we don't simply accept conventional liberal wisdom that it is all GWB's fault? I guess we don't want facts if it gets in the way of our answer.

And, I'm not trying to absolve GWB either. It's just that we are expected to accept many things in FYM - and that scrutiny of such ideas is not tollerated.

 

[YBORCITY]

^ I believe you are trying to absolve GWB. Like yourself I was a blind sheep Ditto Head that had to align myself with everything the Republican Party did and try and justify all the mistakes that this Administration has made.

I'm not anymore though. IMHO, GWB has set this country backward maybe fifty years. His brash, Cowboy mentality has gotten us into many situations that will take years and BILLIONS of tax payer dollars to repay. You would have thought that he may have kearned that it is good to have dissenting opinions in the ranks that surround him but there again ---> your With him or Against him - his worldly view is definitely in Black and White.

 

[nbcrusader]

^ I believe you are trying to absolve GWB. Like yourself I was a blind sheep Ditto Head that had to align myself with everything the Republican Party did and try and justify all the mistakes that this Administration has made.

I'm not anymore though. IMHO, GWB has set this country backward maybe fifty years. His brash, Cowboy mentality has gotten us into many situations that will take years and BILLIONS of tax payer dollars to repay. You would have thought that he may have kearned that it is good to have dissenting opinions in the ranks that surround him but there again ---> your With him or Against him - his worldly view is definitely in Black and White.

Well, shit then. If you can't question statements without the "you are either with us or against us" attitude, what's the fucking point.

FYI - I don't listen to Rush or other right wing media sources.

Why don't we leave FYM as a liberal mutual admiration society so you can feel better about yourself at the end of the day.

 

[YBORCITY]

No, I'm far from being a liberal but this Administration has so rubbed me the wrong way. I can't wait until 2008!!!


McCain 2008

 

[Klink]

My contention is that the figure given there had a lot to do with the creation of Saddam Hussein as enemy number 1 by the Clinton administration for eight years prior and that the assumption was maintained without the need for the Bush administration to tell people that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

Of all the covert attempts to exonerate the Bush administration from responsibility for it's lies and criminal actions, this one takes the cake...by far. After all, the idea here is to claim that Bush had less to do with the public perception of Saddam Hussein than Clinton and by that to ultimately argue that Bush's lies to the American public were inconsequential. More importantly, the public opinion question is an attempt to deviate from the real issues surrounding the Iraq war, which are how and why the Bush Admin. went to war on false premises.

But dealing with this red herring, here are some responses:

1) It is ridiculous to blame the Clinton Admin., as they clearly saw no need to invade Iraq. But to say that Clinton had more to do with the public perception of Iraq than Bush Sr., who invaded Iraq and aged war against the country in the early 1990s, is so mind-bogglingly illogical that it stinks of Republican partisanship.


2) In terms of the Bush Admin's framing of the Iraq issue, consider the following:

They rarely ever directly indicated that Iraq and Septemeber 11th were connected. What they often did was frame both Septmeber 11th/Al Qaeda and Iraq within the wider context of the "War on Terror", knowing full well that the average listener would interpret these as similar entities. This psychological manipulation through vague and misleading wording is obviously purposeful as it directs public perception towards the goals of the admin. However there are some more direct examples as well. Consider the following:


10/7/02 - Bush's Speech at Cincinnati Museum Centre

"The threat comes from Iraq....Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all developments of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The regime has violated all those obligations. It possesses and produces biological and chemical weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism... "

"...We know that Iraq and al Qaeda share a common enemy - The United States. [/B]"

"...Some Senior al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq ". These include one very senior member of Al Qaeda...who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses."

"The attacks of September 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today, in Iraq , we see a threat..."


These are classic examples of linking of terrorism to Iraq, and al Qaeda/9-11 with iraq (it notably includes a bunch of false statements that intelligence agencies had never confirmed regarding WMD). This is only from ONE speech. Not one of these claims was confirmed by the NIE or intelligence agencies when Bush made this speech or to this date.

When did Clinton ever make statements designed to have this kind of impact? Not one supporter of this argument has provided any evidence. Most are being very theoretical, but ignoring the realities of this scenario. Even through one example, you see clearly how Bush created this public impression. Any evidence that Clinton did the same?? Or is the new attempt to blame Clinton here, like arguments for the Iraq war, not based on any evidence what-so-ever?

 

[Judah]

It's not that hard to imagine that many American people, pre-9/11, thought Saddam led a terror state and maybe had terrorist connections. Not to disparage the general American publics' knowledge about world affairs or mid-east politics, but it would be easy enough to understand if they thought of Bin Laden, Iraq, Iran, Syria, PLO, Hamas, and all those other groups as generally being the same one-big enemy. And after 9/11 those general (mis)impressions were probably emboldened: "Get those brown Islamic fuckers...you know, over there in the mid-east."

But what is really sad and troubling is how the Bush Administration used those general misimpressions to their advantage and there's evidence they went out-of-the way to try to make a 9/11-Saddam connection, as Richard Clarke (and others) have stated. There's not much evidence that the Clinton Administration did this, though it obviously saw both Saddam and Bin Laden as threats...just separate ones (as intel would be telling them).

The following excerpt is from:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

 

[BVS]

Pathetic? Pathetic that we don't simply accept conventional liberal wisdom that it is all GWB's fault?

Not what I said. It's pathetic to try and blame a previous administration. GWB could have and should have made things clear by using facts. That's the point I was making. He didn't. In fact he used it to his advantage to get support for the war, by lumping the two together.

 

[nbcrusader]

In looking at the statements posted, GWB did make factual statements.

Instead, some infer a different message because words were used in the same paragraph, and then blast their own inference as misleading.

GWB never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But Saddam does have ties to terrorism.

If anything, the poll shows that people will believe what they want to believe - especially if it allows them to focus on a convenient enemy. This applies across many issues - not just terrorism.