Re: OT: Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Baghdad

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:54:21 GMT, Robert Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
enlightened us:

>
>SkippyPB wrote:
>
>
>> Here is part of a speech that Bush gave after his cowboy like arrival
>> on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (I believe this was May
>> 1):
>> " The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on
>> September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19
>> evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and
>> the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in
>> the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the
>> "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into
>> killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could
>> destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world.
>> They have failed."
>> 
>> If you cannot see that even there Bush is making a direct link between
>> Iraq and 9/11, I don't know what to say.
>
>
>The link there is that both are elements in the "war on terror" that he 
>mentions in that first sentence there.  In other words, we're attacking 
>terror - we're attacking Iraq, and we're attacking the guys who did 
>9/11, and we'll attack terrorists who aren't in Iraq, and we'll attack 
>terrorists who didn't do 9/11.  We'll attack anyone who is involved with 
>terror attacks on America.  It doesn't even come close to saying that 
>all of these parties are the same.  Only politics allows you to skew it 
>any other way.
>

Exactly.  That is what it means.  But, here and in other places, Bush
used Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence, same paragraph thus
creating the impression that they were linked without actually stating
that they were.  It is statements like these that made many Americans
believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11.  

>> In that same speech, Bush also states:
>> " The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
>> terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of
>> terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will
>> gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the
>> regime is no more."
>> Again, linking Iraq (and Saddam by default) to Al Qaeda.
>
>
>Linking Iraq to al-Qaeda does not blame Iraq for 9/11, even if al-Qaeda 
>was to blame for Iraq, any more than linking me to you makes me 
>responsible for anything you do.  That's the fundamental mistake you're 
>making.
>

It doesn't?  Who was responsible for 9/11?  Al Qaeda and everyone
knows that.  The impression is given by linking Iraq to Al Qaeda that
Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

>
>> In Bush's State of the Union message (2003), he states"
>> " 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. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that
>> day never comes. "
>> Again, rhetorically linking Saddam to 9/11.
>
>
>Now you are getting absurd.  He's asking the listener to *imagine* that 
>scenario - in other words, to imagine something that currently does not 
>exist.  It's very clear that he's NOT linking Saddam to 9/11, but 
>rather, saying that we must not allow Saddam to commit acts even worse 
>than 9/11.  That doesn't mean that he's trying to blame Saddam for 9/11. 
>  Once again, only your politics allows you to skew it any other way.
>

Yes he was describing a hypothetical situation, but again the
impression given by most Americans was that Saddam had something to do
with 9/11.  
>You are getting absurd in your efforts here.  You are very desperate to 
>demonstrate your points, but the examples you've resorted to using, and 
>the ways you're trying to skew them, are getting more and more 
>laughable.  How you can overlook the word "imagine" there tells me all I 
>need to know about the way you're willing to skew Bush's words.
>
>
>Pie

I'm trying  to make the point that people believed that Saddam was
responsible for 9/11 because of the way Bush and his administration
always used the two together in speeches.  I've given you quotes by
Bush and Cheney.  You've pointed out what those statements actually
said and I don't disagree with your interpretation.  But, the average
Joe and Jane on the street hearing those statements did not interpret
them the same way.  And that's what Bush and his administration were
counting on.

>From a USA Today Gallup poll taken in September of this year, the
question asked was:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September
11th terrorist attacks, or not?"

43% said he was; 50% said he was not.

In March of this year the same question was asked and 51% said he was
and 41% said he was not. 

( Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 National
Adults, aged 18+, conducted September 19-21, 2003.  For results based
on the total sample of National Adults, one can say with 95%
confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.)

Obviously Bush's September 17th statement had some effect on what
people believe.

As a way of comparison to what people have been believing, a CNN/USA
Today Gallup Poll taken between August 19-21 of 2002 asked the same
question. The results were based on telephone interviews with 801
national adults, aged 18+.  53 percent expressed their opinion that
Saddam Hussein was "personally involved in the September 11th
attacks."

Regards,

          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


Real Tombstone Epitaphs:

In a Thurmont, Maryland, cemetery:
Here lies an Atheist
All dressed up And no place to go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve