🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2007-07-06 06:41:29 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:

> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:13:19 GMT, Al Giazirra
> <thatsme@realitalianlastname.com > wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:57:53 GMT, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:22:43 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2007-07-04 10:12:12 -0400, Joeseph P. Blow <jpblow@gmail.com> said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now you're claiming Iraq was a threat to our nation and _THAT's_ why
>>>>> bush attacked?
>>> 
>>> Here ya go, moron... Get someone to explain this to ya...
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11
>>>> Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
>>>> Tuesday September 12, 2006
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> "I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not 
>>>> responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that 
>>>> the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Liberals ARE this stupid.
>>> 
>>> Mike Smith
>> 
>> Stupid for posting what that president said or stupid for actually
>> remembering it?
> 
> No, dumbass. Can't you follow a thread?  No one claimed Iraq was
> responsible for 9-11. The buffoon is arguing about nothing in
> dispute... That's what's stupid...

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."


-- 
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in 
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after 
all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it 
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a 
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist 
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to 
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL 
THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of 
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY 
COUNTRY."
�
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials