Iraq Terrorist Attack coming?

[mauchow]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108371,00.html

This sounds pretty scary if you ask me.. Help me understand this article a little. It sounds like Iraq is going to be attacked???

[Easy Mac]

I'm confused a bit however. He ends the story by calling it the "Bin Laden" story, but he actually only mentions Bin Laden in passing in one sentence when he says it may be Al Quaeda or Al Zawahiri or... There are more terrorists than Bin Laden who want to fuck up whoever they can. I'm not defending the guy, but to think there's only 1 fucked up individual who controls all the stupid people in the world is crazy (besides Bush or Dean soon:p).

[yabanci]

I think it's called fear mongering to boost ratings.

[Easy Mac]

how dare you blaspheme the sanctity of cable news channels.

[mauchow]

Hmm.. Interesting points.

[NoMyths]

Not to mention the sanctity of Fox News.

Just me, or was anyone else somewhat put off by the reporter saying that they were planning something "similar to a World Trade Center type of attack" just because the alleged terrorists allegedly wanted to kill 3-5,000 people. Um, that's just a big attack. Unless they're flying planes into those Iraqi skyscrapers I don't know about, leave the World Trade Center out of it...the only reason he's mentioning it is to tie Iraq to an attack they almost certainly had nothing to do with.

[Fonzie]

I think it's called fear mongering to boost ratings.

Bingo!

[oykib]

I think it's called fear mongering to boost ratings.

I think it's called FOX NEWS.
:rolleyes:

[tucker342]

I think it's called fear mongering to boost ratings.

that sounds about right....

[tucker342]

dola-

don't you think that if it was true that some of the other news stations would've said something about it? Just a thought...

[Glengoyne]

leave the World Trade Center out of it...the only reason he's mentioning it is to tie Iraq to an attack they almost certainly had nothing to do with.
I would say the only people bringing up Iraqi ties to 9/11 are the opponents of the President of the United States. The Whitehouse doesn't contend that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. They have said they looked into possible links, but they certainly aren't currently saying he was responsible at all. I don't even think they have EVER said it, if you look at the complete context of the qoutes being referenced.

We went to war with Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The majority of Americans supported the decision. The majority of Americans still do. If the previous administration had had the guts to remove him, we would probably be on the same side of this argument, telling the right wingers to get over it. So get over it already.

[NoMyths]

I would say the only people bringing up Iraqi ties to 9/11 are the opponents of the President of the United States. The Whitehouse doesn't contend that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. They have said they looked into possible links, but they certainly aren't currently saying he was responsible at all. I don't even think they have EVER said it, if you look at the complete context of the qoutes being referenced.Huh? History doesn't stand on the side of your assertion.

We went to war with Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power.We went to war with Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he posed an immediate threat to our national security and would be able to use weapons of mass destruction against us within a handful of years.

So get over it already.It's like telling someone to get over terminal cancer, friend...I can think away the problem all I want, but the cause of my concern still remains.

[Easy Mac]

Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll
This is a quote from an article this past September about a link between Iraq and 9/11. I think the people made a link that hasn't been dismissed by the White House.

Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.



<hr> We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.


President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.



<hr> We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.



I have no idea how people could think 9/11 and Saddam are tied.

[Glengoyne]

OK...so where exactly does Cheney or Bush say that Saddam was tied to 9/11?

Bush says that Iraq essentially allowed the presence of Al Qaeda training camp(s). There has been evidence of this released. Yes he does mention poison gas. The dreaded WMD. Who are you to say there wasn't evidence to that effect? Hell we were having cell phone conversations with the Iraqi generals defending Baghdad, and they all said there were WMD deployed and ready to use. Just because there haven't been any WMD found in Iraq, doesn't mean there weren't people providing intelligence that they were there. Hell, his own generals thought they had them.

Cheney: "The geographic Base of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11" is where?

Are you ready for this? The Middle East

So where is Iraq? Right Smack dab in the middle of the middle eastern countries fostering terrorism against the United States.

Again I noted that eventhough Bill Clinton advocated a regime change in Iraq, spoke at great length of the danger to the western world presented by Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, he did little to stop him. If he had, I would have supported him. I am pretty sure you would have to. I am tired of people opposing decisions, based solely on who made the decision.


Edit to say that whoever conducted that poll stating that 69% of Americans believe there is a link between Saddam and 9/11 probably conducted all those polls that showed Cruz Bustamante ahead of Schwarzenegger in California. I don't buy it. I don't think you could find 3 people in 10 that think such a link exists.

[WussGawd]

I think it's called fear mongering to boost ratings.

I heart this post.

[dawgfan]

Cheney: "The geographic Base of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11" is where?

Are you ready for this? The Middle East

So where is Iraq? Right Smack dab in the middle of the middle eastern countries fostering terrorism against the United States.

Please. Cheney is talking about Al Qaeda obviously, and by using terminology like "the heart of the base...the geographic base" he's implying the center of where Al Qaeda orginates. To really strike at the "heart of the base" of Al Qaeda you'd be striking at either Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. This was a sneaky way of trying to link Iraq and Al Qaeda.

[Buddy Grant]

I would say the only people bringing up Iraqi ties to 9/11 are the opponents of the President of the United States. The Whitehouse doesn't contend that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. They have said they looked into possible links, but they certainly aren't currently saying he was responsible at all. I don't even think they have EVER said it, if you look at the complete context of the qoutes being referenced.

We went to war with Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The majority of Americans supported the decision. The majority of Americans still do. If the previous administration had had the guts to remove him, we would probably be on the same side of this argument, telling the right wingers to get over it. So get over it already.
This has got to be a joke right? It's not hilarious, but it's still pretty funny :D .

[Fritz]

A Canadian, a poet, and Saddam Hussein walk into a strip club.....

[Glengoyne]

Please. Cheney is talking about Al Qaeda obviously, and by using terminology like "the heart of the base...the geographic base" he's implying the center of where Al Qaeda orginates. To really strike at the "heart of the base" of Al Qaeda you'd be striking at either Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. This was a sneaky way of trying to link Iraq and Al Qaeda.He said terrorists, not al qaeda. It is obvious to you, because you want(desperately want) Cheney or someone in the administration to say "Saddam and Osama attacked us on September 11th". The interviewer is wanting him to tie the two together. Cheney does not. He is not being sneaky about it. You are.

Cheney is actually speaking english here. There is no subtext, hidden nor apparent. Sometimes reading between the lines is just making something out of nothing.


Oh and Buddy Grant, it's no joke dawgfan really is sneaky:p

[Glengoyne]

A Canadian, a poet, and Saddam Hussein walk into a strip club.....
Lemme guess. The Canadian had Saddam's back, and paid for the poets health care.:D

[Easy Mac]

And Bush says their all faggots and declares they can't get married in the US?

[BishopMVP]

Despite the claims that Bush and his administration has tried to link Saddam and 9/11, the percentage of Americans that believe a link exists has dropped in the past 2.5 years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm)

Also, if Bush had claimed there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 (he didn't) our attack on Iraq would not have been pre-emptive, which seemed to be the big problem many people had with it. In the case that Bush had made that assertion, it may been based on faulty evidence, but faulty evidence pointing to a direct attack on the US. Of course, Bush didn't make this claim. He specifically claimed that we must go into Iraq "before they became an imminent threat", which was good enough for most Americans.

[dan_garlick]

Despite the claims that Bush and his administration has tried to link Saddam and 9/11, the percentage of Americans that believe a link exists has dropped in the past 2.5 years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm)

Also, if Bush had claimed there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 (he didn't) our attack on Iraq would not have been pre-emptive, which seemed to be the big problem many people had with it. In the case that Bush had made that assertion, it may been based on faulty evidence, but faulty evidence pointing to a direct attack on the US. Of course, Bush didn't make this claim. He specifically claimed that we must go into Iraq "before they became an imminent threat", which was good enough for most Americans.

Well, it's not good enough for this American and I am a captain serving with the 36th Fighter Squadron in Osan ,South Korea. :cool:

[dawgfan]

He said terrorists, not al qaeda. It is obvious to you, because you want(desperately want) Cheney or someone in the administration to say "Saddam and Osama attacked us on September 11th". The interviewer is wanting him to tie the two together. Cheney does not. He is not being sneaky about it. You are.

Cheney is actually speaking english here. There is no subtext, hidden nor apparent. Sometimes reading between the lines is just making something out of nothing.

You're kidding right? The quote being referenced was from a question to Cheney about "...whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003". You remember September 11th right, the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda? If that isn't clear enough, Cheney's answer specifically mentions "...the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Um, that would be Al Qaeda.

As much as you'd like to simplify things and take a literalist approach to this example, language is about more than the exact words said - it's also about context and about implication. The answer Cheney gives implies connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. You're either incapable of recognizing this (which I doubt) or your politics prevent you from reaching that conclusion.

[Glengoyne]

Well, it's not good enough for this American and I am a captain serving with the 36th Fighter Squadron in Osan ,South Korea. :cool:
I can certainly understand that sentiment. I didn't exactly embrace the policy of preemtion even before our intelligence services dropped the WMD ball in Iraq. With the Iraq intelligence debacle now evident, if not completely resolved, I don't think preemption is a prudent avenue to prusue in the future. Unless, that is, intelligence gathering and analysis is improved.

See dawgfan, I really am a reasonable person. I try to avoid letting my politics cloud my interpretation of events. That is tough, because I am so all over the spectrum. You wanna burn a flag, I say feel free. You wanna don a hood and burn a cross on your property, I say feel free. You wanna own a gun, I say feel free.

Oh and Dan G. Thanks for the service you are performing in the millitary. It is quite appreciated.

[BishopMVP]

Well, it's not good enough for this American and I am a captain serving with the 36th Fighter Squadron in Osan ,South Korea. :cool:If you disagree with the doctrine of pre-emption, that's fine and a reasonable position. In the case of Iraq, I certainly agreed with our actions for reasons explained elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I agreed entirely with the rationale. I was just pointing out that Bush did not attempt to link Saddam and 9/11 in his policy speeches and the build-up to the war.

You're kidding right? The quote being referenced was from a question to Cheney about "...whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003". You remember September 11th right, the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda? If that isn't clear enough, Cheney's answer specifically mentions "...the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Um, that would be Al Qaeda.

As much as you'd like to simplify things and take a literalist approach to this example, language is about more than the exact words said - it's also about context and about implication. The answer Cheney gives implies connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. You're either incapable of recognizing this (which I doubt) or your politics prevent you from reaching that conclusion.Here's a link to the original transcript - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

Cheney doesn't utilize a "sneaky way of trying to connect Iraq and Al-Qaeda" as you say in your previous post - Cheney explicitly says this.

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.This was also the same week as Donald Rumsfeld said "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," in response to the poll and President Bush said "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," but, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks."

In short the administration has linked Saddam and Al-Qaeda, but not Saddam and 9/11.

[Samdari]

EDIT: My mistake, posted in a political thread, leaving now.

[dan_garlick]

Sorry to of snapped at you alittle, your point is taken and I also respect it as well.BTW you are going to UMASS that's cool.I am from Worcester just down the road and I graduated from to Boston Uni. a few years back.How's the weather?Cold Huh I here.Well, keep the home fires burning!



If you disagree with the doctrine of pre-emption, that's fine and a reasonable position. In the case of Iraq, I certainly agreed with our actions for reasons explained elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I agreed entirely with the rationale. I was just pointing out that Bush did not attempt to link Saddam and 9/11 in his policy speeches and the build-up to the war.

Here's a link to the original transcript - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

Cheney doesn't utilize a "sneaky way of trying to connect Iraq and Al-Qaeda" as you say in your previous post - Cheney explicitly says this.

This was also the same week as Donald Rumsfeld said "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," in response to the poll and President Bush said "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," but, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks."

In short the administration has linked Saddam and Al-Qaeda, but not Saddam and 9/11.

[WussGawd]

He said terrorists, not al qaeda. It is obvious to you, because you want(desperately want) Cheney or someone in the administration to say "Saddam and Osama attacked us on September 11th". The interviewer is wanting him to tie the two together. Cheney does not. He is not being sneaky about it. You are.

Cheney is actually speaking english here. There is no subtext, hidden nor apparent. Sometimes reading between the lines is just making something out of nothing.


Oh and Buddy Grant, it's no joke dawgfan really is sneaky:p

Um, actually, various members of the administration, including Cheney, have said there were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Have they gone so far as to say Saddam was behind 9/11? There have been suggestions, again from the administration.

[Desnudo]

Didn't need to read the story, just saw Fox News in the link and knew the validity of the "journalism." :rolleyes:

[pskov]

Hey, don't bash it, Fox News is one of my favourite channels.

Always makes me laugh. :D

[Maple Leafs]

Have they gone so far as to say Saddam was behind 9/11? There have been suggestions, again from the administration.Can you provide any quotes from them, to that effect?

(Not a putdown or a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious.)

[Butter]

"Axis of Evil", anyone?

[Glengoyne]

Um, actually, various members of the administration, including Cheney, have said there were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Have they gone so far as to say Saddam was behind 9/11? There have been suggestions, again from the administration.

I believe that evidence has been produced showing ties between Iraq and al qaeda. It is not evidence that Saddam is in the power structure of al qaeda, I'm not saying that he is. It is simply evidence that the Iraqi government had some communications with al qaeda, and other terror organizations.

Also how can you read the transcript of the actual conversation, and still maintain that Cheney said there were ties. I don't believe the administration has said anything more suggestive than "it hasn't been ruled out".

[Fritz]

How come there is never of an Axis of Silk Panties?

[Easy Mac]

Because you're never lucky enough to get 3 pairs of silk panties in the same room?

[John Galt]

hxxp://lunaville.org/WMD/ALQ_UGGAB.aspx (http://lunaville.org/WMD/ALQ_UGGAB.aspx)

[John Galt]

And just for fun, here are quotes about Iraq and WMD's from the same site:

hxxp://lunaville.com/wmd/billmon.aspx (http://lunaville.com/wmd/billmon.aspx)

[Fritz]

Because you're never lucky enough to get 3 pairs of silk panties in the same room?


That guy in Madison did.

[Easy Mac]

Here is a quote from the State of the Union address last January. By reading this quote, I think it is easy to see how the average, non-politics following person can be confused over Saddam's involvement in 9/11.



And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

[Easy Mac]

That guy in Madison did.
but not with women in them (or standing next to them with the panties on the floor)

[Glengoyne]

OK John and Easy Mac. What in those quotes says that Saddam was tied to 9/11? It isn't there.

Easy are you changing your story now. Did the administration say that Saddam was behind 9/11 or did he just mention Saddam's ties to al qaeda within a few seconds of mentioning September 11th, and thereby allowed stupid people to be confused?

Pretty soon we're gonna see 'President Bush blames September 11th attacks on Saddam Hussein' debunked on snopes.com

[Maple Leafs]

hxxp://lunaville.org/WMD/ALQ_UGGAB.aspx (http://lunaville.org/WMD/ALQ_UGGAB.aspx)Both of the pages you cite list several instances where Bush, Cheney and others have argued that Saddam has had connections with Al Qaeda.

What I'm not seeing is anything there that could rationally be considered an attempt to claim that Saddam himself was behind 9/11.

I'd love to have some sort of quote from Bush saying "Iraq was behind the attacks of September 11". I can think of a few hardcore rightwing types around the office who I'd enjoy sending it to.

[Easy Mac]

Easy are you changing your story now. Did the administration say that Saddam was behind 9/11 or did he just mention Saddam's ties to al qaeda within a few seconds of mentioning September 11th, and thereby allowed stupid people to be confused?
Actually, I don't think I ever said Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11. I said he said things that very clearly gave people a cause for believing Saddam and 9/11 are linked. I actually haven't strayed from saying that.

[Fonzie]

Actually, I don't think I ever said Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11. I said he said things that very clearly gave people a cause for believing Saddam and 9/11 are linked. I actually haven't strayed from saying that.

And he has done so repeatedly. Over and over and over again Bush mentioned Hussein, al Qaeda, and 9/11 in the same breath. Human memory is not perfect - it naturally fills in gaps in information, which is usually very adaptive and helpful. However, this can create potentially unwarranted impressions and form associations where none may have truly existed. As any good marketing, advertising, or political executive can tell you, this "feature" of human cognition can be exploited to influence opinion and behavior.

So, while Bush never explicitly said that Saddam was behind 9/11, he implicitly created associations that could lead people to form that impression. This almost certainly contributed to the public perception that Saddam was tied to 9/11.

And it should probably also be pointed out that the administration has not bent over backwards to dispell this notion. At least not as vigorously as they bent over backwards to contribute to it.

[John Galt]

Both of the pages you cite list several instances where Bush, Cheney and others have argued that Saddam has had connections with Al Qaeda.

What I'm not seeing is anything there that could rationally be considered an attempt to claim that Saddam himself was behind 9/11.

I'd love to have some sort of quote from Bush saying "Iraq was behind the attacks of September 11". I can think of a few hardcore rightwing types around the office who I'd enjoy sending it to.
I don't think anyone believes such a quote exists. The problem with Bush in all this is that many things were said to create the impression of connecting Saddam to September 11th without explicitly doing so. This literalism and creative wording is very Clintonesque and especially ugly because it was used to support a war.

Look at the long list of quotes in that link and ask yourself why anyone would say all those things if they weren't trying to create an impression that Saddam was in part responsible for September 11th. The public got the idea from somewhere and the Bush administration did everything to encourage it.

[John Galt]

Personally, these are the quotes I find most disturbing:

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

"We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind."

And don't forget that Al Qaeda was being described wholly in terms of September 11th during most of these speeches. Most Americans had very limited understanding of the organization outside of the WTC bombings. To constantly invoke the Al Qaeda connection was to constantly invoke the September 11th connection.

[Glengoyne]

Well here is where we disagree. I don't think they are trying to mislead anyone into thinking there was a link. I think they would have loved it, if there was an actual link. There simply wasn't. I read those quotes and try to resolve them with other statements made by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Powell. In my mind they are saying that they considered Saddam/Iraq to be an ally of the terrorists. That is all. Then again I still don't buy the original Washington Post Poll that said nearly 70% of Americans felt a link exists. I am curious as to the date of that poll. I also wonder if anyone else has since done a poll that would discredit this one. I mean I really just dont' buy it.

[dawgfan]

And he has done so repeatedly. Over and over and over again Bush mentioned Hussein, al Qaeda, and 9/11 in the same breath. Human memory is not perfect - it naturally fills in gaps in information, which is usually very adaptive and helpful. However, this can create potentially unwarranted impressions and form associations where none may have truly existed. As any good marketing, advertising, or political executive can tell you, this "feature" of human cognition can be exploited to influence opinion and behavior.

So, while Bush never explicitly said that Saddam was behind 9/11, he implicitly created associations that could lead people to form that impression. This almost certainly contributed to the public perception that Saddam was tied to 9/11.

And it should probably also be pointed out that the administration has not bent over backwards to dispell this notion. At least not as vigorously as they bent over backwards to contribute to it.

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying exactly what others have been saying previously in less eloquent and descriptive ways. Anyone that's taken communications courses, worked in PR or has a basic understanding of how human cognition works knows exactly what you're talking about.

The brilliance of what Bush and his administration have done in this regard is that the implication was always between the lines, such that people like Glengoyne could look back and say "See, they never explicitly said Hussein/Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks!" They didn't have to - they way they grouped these things together created that impression for them.

[Easy Mac]

Well here is where we disagree. I don't think they are trying to mislead anyone into thinking there was a link. I think they would have loved it, if there was an actual link. There simply wasn't. I read those quotes and try to resolve them with other statements made by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Powell. In my mind they are saying that they considered Saddam/Iraq to be an ally of the terrorists. That is all. Then again I still don't buy the original Washington Post Poll that said nearly 70% of Americans felt a link exists. I am curious as to the date of that poll. I also wonder if anyone else has since done a poll that would discredit this one. I mean I really just dont' buy it.
The date of the poll was September of last year. The latest number I saw (late Dec. to early Jan.) says that about 60% believe so.

[BishopMVP]

The date of the poll was September of last year. The latest number I saw (late Dec. to early Jan.) says that about 60% believe so.Here's another link to the WaPo poll - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm I haven't seen any numbers since this one, but the number probably has kept dropping, especially since right around when this poll came out, the Bush Administration began explicitly saying there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Overall, it seems that people are blaming Bush because he said things that could "give the impression" that Saddam and 9/11 were linked. IMO, the President (Bush, Clinton, all the others) shouldn't be held accountable for what uninformed or stupid people construe their statements to mean. When you have a quote like the one Easy Mac brought up from the SotU "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein." I read it as clearly saying Saddam was (EDIT - not. oops) behind the 9/11 attack. If someone takes that passage and links Saddam and 9/11 in their mind, they obviously aren't paying attention.

Sorry to of snapped at you alittle, your point is taken and I also respect it as well.BTW you are going to UMASS that's cool.I am from Worcester just down the road and I graduated from to Boston Uni. a few years back.How's the weather?Cold Huh I here.Well, keep the home fires burning!Don't worry about it, I didn't take any offense at that post. I live about halfway between Boston and Worcester, and I saw UMass play @ BU last week. UMass won 2-1 :D, first time ever at Walter Brown, and probably the last since BU's new rink is being built. Supposed to be 30 this weekend, but the temperature at 6am tomorrow is a projected -13 with -35 wind chill, a new low if it happens. Thank god I don't have to walk across campus to class in that (classes start the 30th or so.)

[NoMyths]

Then again I still don't buy the original Washington Post Poll that said nearly 70% of Americans felt a link exists. I am curious as to the date of that poll. I also wonder if anyone else has since done a poll that would discredit this one. I mean I really just dont' buy it.Not wanting to believe the evidence doesn't make it any less true, Glengoyne...and if you're trying to convince yourself that your position is correct in the face of conflicting evidence, you should at least be conscious of that fact.

[CamEdwards]

after reading through all this, I just have to say "I heart Fritz".