I have watched the russian beheading, I have watched the Nicholas Berg beheading, nothing compares to this. These things don't bother me much, but This has actually made me mentally sick...like I feel physically ill. Just a fair warning, I would not watch this video.

I have watched the russian beheading, I have watched the Nicholas Berg beheading, nothing compares to this. These things don't bother me much, but This has actually made me mentally sick...like I feel physically ill. Just a fair warning, I would not watch this video.

I watched the video of when they beheaded the Wall Street Journalists some time ago on ConsumptionJunction.com. That made me sick, angry and any other adjective that describes my disgust at these people. I have not seen the video of Berg being beheaded but I have seen some stills on DrudgeReport.com. It brought back all of those feelings of the earlier beheading. People question why they have the gaul to do this but those people don't know any different like we do here in America.

I'm very disgusted at this whole Iraq deal anyway. So don't get me started on it. :Bang

ya know... after hearing this I say screw 'em. Screw rules of engagment... screw humanity, screw the enemy.

They shoot at us... we shoot to kill, take no prisioners. If they don't play by the rules, then why should we? Why should we put our soldiers and citizens lives of the line only to be "nice"? This is totally unacceptable and like you said, it makes me sick just thinking about the poor guy.

IMHO, send in the marines.... take out anything and everything that poses a threat. I'm sick and tired of all this "nice guy" stuff going on lately. We tried that route and look where it's getting us.

Hi All

If I were in charge Iraq would allready be an uninhabited wasteland.

Regards

Dereck

yeah, well im almost of the attitude that they do something like this, bomb the town we think they are in -- totally - no survivors - BOOM - problem gone.

Seems fair to me, they claim they beheaded him for some mistreatment of iraqi prisoners - ok, then a fair response to the beheading is taking a whole town. Simple.

I have to admit, I too am tiring of the USA taking the high road..... It s not seeming to work - just to get us more abused.
I think we need to pull ALL foriegn financial aid -- all of it. humanatarian aid, all of it. --- then take that money and pour it all into development of non oil sources of energy - so we dont need the middle east.

In a conflict, we should try diplomatic channels, and if that doesnt work, go in full force and take it over. When we take something over, we keep it. None of this give it back crap. Im tired of freeing countries for them to stick it to us later on. The french could easily be speaking german today........ Granted it was 60 years ago - but I got to thinking, what have they done for us in those 60 years besides give us grief?

I have watched the russian beheading, I have watched the Nicholas Berg beheading, nothing compares to this. These things don't bother me much, but This has actually made me mentally sick...like I feel physically ill. Just a fair warning, I would not watch this video.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to watch that video.
Glynette

Hi All
If I were in charge Iraq would allready be an uninhabited wasteland.
Regards
Dereck

So we should lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists and attack civilians and innocents? Most of the people in Iraq are like you and me. Just living day to day.

There's a word for attempting to destroy whole nations of people. Genocide.
Is that what you support?

Good thing you're not in charge.

What video are you talking about, Joey? I'm sort of coming in late here.

What video are you talking about, Joey? I'm sort of coming in late here.
THe video showing the beheading.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to watch that video.
Glynette

Sometimes it's not a matter of wanting to, but needing to, like the video of the planes hitting the WTC. This is news and the people have a right to know what's going on. And the more people that see it, the bigger the backlash effect against the terrorists responsible.

So we should lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists and attack civilians and innocents? Most of the people in Iraq are like you and me. Just living day to day.

There's a word for attempting to destroy whole nations of people. Genocide.
Is that what you support?

Good thing you're not in charge.

Sometimes people just need to vent their emotions by saying "blow them all to hell!" or whatever. I'm sure he's not literally serious. But you're right, most in Iraq are caught in the middle right now. But we also have to remember what the U.S. is dealing with in regards to the social and cultural psyche of the Middle East. Over there, they have demonstrations and shout "Death to America!", and they mean it. The U.S. shows restraint and many in the Middle East view this as weakness. The Arab world is so blind and manipulated by their propaganda. How long do you think it would take for an independent Palestinian nation to form if all the terrorists stopped fighting there? Not very long, relatively speaking. If Israel lives peacably with it's neighbors, what's the problem? The problem is that many don't want Israel to exist, so the conflict continues. I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect or that mistakes haven't been made, but we have the luxury of hearing both sides (in most cases) and forming and voicing opinions without fear of death.

The Arab world is so blind and manipulated by their propaganda.

To be fair, over 50% of Americans believe that Iraq was involved in the attacks on the WTC (tothe point where they think that the hijackers were Iraqi) despite Bush and Cheney both declaring publicly that there was *no connection* between Iraq and the happenings of 9/11 (they declared this, of course, after months of mentioning Osama and Saddam - two men who have always hated each other - in the same breath). Unfortunately, we are blind and manipulated by our propaganda, too.


How long do you think it would take for an independent Palestinian nation to form if all the terrorists stopped fighting there? Not very long, relatively speaking.

Honestly? a very, very long time. Nobody likes the Palestinians. If you look at the history of the region, the only people more disliked than the Israelis over there are the Palestinians. It's politically advantageous for both the hard line Israelies AND the hard line ant-Israelis for Palestine to exist.

"To be fair, over 50% of Americans believe that Iraq was involved in the attacks on the WTC (tothe point where they think that the hijackers were Iraqi) despite Bush and Cheney both declaring publicly that there was *no connection* between Iraq and the happenings of 9/11 (they declared this, of course, after months of mentioning Osama and Saddam - two men who have always hated each other - in the same breath). Unfortunately, we are blind and manipulated by our propaganda, too."

The poll question you are referring to: "To the best of your knowledge, how many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 hijackings?" (or very similar question)
My question to you without you looking it up: "How many Palestinians were involved in the 9/11 hijackings? or Syrians, or Jordanians, or Lebanese, or Egyptians?"
If you don't get the correct answer, here's how I will interpret it. If you guess a number and it is actually zero, I'll report that you are mislead by some groups propaganda (a group which is opposed to the country in question). And if you guess more than the correct number, I'll report that you are biased against that country.
My point is that that particular poll was very nebulous and the way the question was asked was misleading. Many people assumed the questioner was informing them that Iraqis were involved and simply to give a number. If someone said "1", they were lumped in with the 50% you mentioned. It was a totally bogus poll and, dare I say, liberal propaganda.


"Honestly? a very, very long time. Nobody likes the Palestinians. If you look at the history of the region, the only people more disliked than the Israelis over there are the Palestinians. It's politically advantageous for both the hard line Israelies AND the hard line ant-Israelis for Palestine to exist."

I'm trying to look at this statement from all angles, but it's not advantageous to the majority of Israelis who want peace. I see your point about hard-liners wanting to stay in power, but I believe it is flawed. This situation cannot last forever, it's simply too volatile for any kind of equilibrium to last.

I have a bellybutton.

The poll question you are referring to: "To the best of your knowledge, how many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 hijackings?" (or very similar question)
My question to you without you looking it up: "How many Palestinians were involved in the 9/11 hijackings? or Syrians, or Jordanians, or Lebanese, or Egyptians?"

Weren't all but one of them Saudis? (the answer to that question is "yes")

Fact of the matter is that there were ZERO Iraqis involved, the fact that the majority of Americans believe that ANY were involved show how ineffectual our press is.

My point is that that particular poll was very nebulous and the way the question was asked was misleading. Many people assumed the questioner was informing them that Iraqis were involved and simply to give a number. If someone said "1", they were lumped in with the 50% you mentioned. It was a totally bogus poll and, dare I say, liberal propaganda.

There are plenty of ways to give polls, many of which bias the poll. To call that poll liberal propaganda is a stretch, however. If the people taking the poll knew the answer the misleading poll question wouldn't have worked *ANYWAY*.

I'm trying to look at this statement from all angles, but it's not advantageous to the majority of Israelis who want peace. I see your point about hard-liners wanting to stay in power, but I believe it is flawed. This situation cannot last forever, it's simply too volatile for any kind of equilibrium to last.

I don't really think the point is that flawed. Before the creation of Israel the Arab countries were falling over themselves trying to get rid of the Palestinians. The hard line Israelies have sabataged any meaningful attempts at peace with the Palestinians at every turn (up to and including assassinating their OWN politicians who would dare offer the olive branch). I don't really see how it can end well, and that's an admittedly cynical view. Fact is Palestine is just an excuse, if things get worked out there someone will just find another one.

"Weren't all but one of them Saudis? (the answer to that question is "yes")"

Wrong answer. There were 15 Saudis, 2 UAE citizens, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese. The Saudi majority is easily explained: one very rich Saudi founded Al Qaida. But the Saudi government is not actively involved in funding or helping terrorism against the U.S., Iraq was.

"Fact of the matter is that there were ZERO Iraqis involved, the fact that the majority of Americans believe that ANY were involved show how ineffectual our press is."

This is assuming no one else was involved that wasn't on board the planes. There are Iraqis in Al Qaida. The extent of the involvement is still being investigated, although admittedly little if any.

"There are plenty of ways to give polls, many of which bias the poll. To call that poll liberal propaganda is a stretch, however. If the people taking the poll knew the answer the misleading poll question wouldn't have worked *ANYWAY*."

Fair enough, I'll change my description of the poll to "utterly useless". (see your above answer to hijacker nationalities)


"I don't really think the point is that flawed. Before the creation of Israel the Arab countries were falling over themselves trying to get rid of the Palestinians. The hard line Israelies have sabataged any meaningful attempts at peace with the Palestinians at every turn (up to and including assassinating their OWN politicians who would dare offer the olive branch). I don't really see how it can end well, and that's an admittedly cynical view. Fact is Palestine is just an excuse, if things get worked out there someone will just find another one."

So are you of the opinion that the U.S. should stick our heads in the sand and hope everything turns out okay? I agree with you that things probably won't end well. But I do believe the U.S. can affect a more favorable outcome, in Israel and Iraq.

Clearly, you don't even know which poll you are referring to. I do. And it's not "nebulous" and it's not even worded oddly. It's cut and dry. And you'd have to be really dumb (Americans aren't THAT dumb) to not understand it. Here, allow me to try it on you, and let's see your answer. This is the EXACT poll released on September 6, 2003

"How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks" 70% of Americans polled (1,003 of them to be exact) believed Saddam was involved. PERIOD. So what do you say now??

So why did so many Americans think Saddam was involved? Hmmm..maybe it's because your President and his cronies have beem implying a link since 9/11 Here are some quotes:

Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officials.

Here's Georgie pushing for a link here: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

And here: "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."

And another: "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. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

So clearly the public made this jump because of the President misleading them time and time again. I'm less inclined to be critical of the public for the Sept. 13, 2001 Time/CNN poll that found that 78 percent had a feeling Iraq was connected. Fair enough..it was 2 days after the fact, and Iraq was distasteful to many Americans. But the poll released a year later? Americans aren't dumb..(not 70% of them anyways) to think Iraq was involved unless it was drilled into their heads...and it was..from Bush and Co.

Ron, Ron Ron Ron,...Ron

Ron, Ron Ron Ron,...Ron


Clearly you are only saying that because you know my post is accurate and correct...????

So we should lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists and attack civilians and innocents? Most of the people in Iraq are like you and me. Just living day to day.

There's a word for attempting to destroy whole nations of people. Genocide.
Is that what you support?

Good thing you're not in charge.

Dang, looks like someone touched a nerve.

Civilian casulaties are part of war- deal with it. During ww2 allied forces carpet bombed axis cities with little or no military value. Ever hear of the Dresden bombing? What quickly ended the war with Japan? Killing thousands of innocent people in Hirosima and Nagasaki.

The people over there are nuts! Maybe Sadam wasn't that bad a guy after all(although the mass murders and such are a bit much) and he was just tired of putting up with so many crazy ass people.

I too am very tired and frustrated with this :q good guy crap. If it takes a million Iraqi citizens to die to save the life of ONE coalition soldier let the bombing begin. People don't know what real war is anymore. People are too PC and worried about what others opinions to do the logical thing. :Bang

Well whatever the reason may be we have not had any terrorist attacks in the continental U.S. since we started our war on terror. Even if we have not eradicated the leaders and backers of terrorism we have kept them on the run enough to inhibt their activities.
As to innocent civilians, if your not with us, your against us. These innocent civilians support, shield, and supply members for terrorist organizations. Why don't these peace loving muslims divorce themselves from the radical muslims if they don't feel they represent the true face of their religion?
Israel is a red herring. Muslims have been disturbing their neighbors all over the world since before Israel existed and would continue to do so if Israel disappeared tonight.
And why did the democrats who were so upset about us being in Iraq want to send our troops into Haiti to support a dictator/drug lord?

Clearly, you don't even know which poll you are referring to. I do. And it's not "nebulous" and it's not even worded oddly. It's cut and dry. And you'd have to be really dumb (Americans aren't THAT dumb) to not understand it. Here, allow me to try it on you, and let's see your answer. This is the EXACT poll released on September 6, 2003

"How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks" 70% of Americans polled (1,003 of them to be exact) believed Saddam was involved. PERIOD. So what do you say now??



Here's what I have to say: "you're the one that doesn't know which poll I was referring to." But I will address the poll question you cited: "How LIKELY is it that Saddam Hussein . . . ." Key word to this poll is "LIKELY". I couldn't find the poll on the net after a few minutes of searching, but I found lots of articles that used the poll results (articles which it seems you have plagiarized in your post). I'm not sure what the choices were to answer the poll question, but I suspect it was something like this: (1) 100% likely (2) very likely (3) likely (4) very unlikely (5) 100% unlikely. The 70% of Americans probably chose 1,2,3 or 4. And the 30% chose 5. Doesn't seem so "cut and dry" anymore, does it. Or surely most Canadians aren't that dumb to believe all the editorials against Bush are true instead of opinion, are they? Truth is, the manipulation of the public works both ways, so try rising above it for once. I suspect you will work diligently to find the poll and hopefully post the results of EVERY choice given to answer the Saddam Hussein question.

And just an off the wall remark: Al Capone was convicted of tax fraud. "You'd have to be really dumb" (your saying, not mine) to think that Al Capone wasn't "LIKELY" involved in burglary, murder, extortion, etc., etc.

1) The fact of the matter is Americans believed there was a STRONG connection between Saddam and 9/11, which clearly isn't the case.

2) I didn't plagiarize..I quoted. Shall I include footnotes the next time to set you at ease?

3) Americans aren't dumb. I should have been more clear on this point. Either: a) Americans are stupid people to believe Saddam was involved (which they are not)
b) Americans were MISLED by their pres. and his cronies into believing Saddam was involved.
I really and truly think it was "b". Do you disagree? I certainly don't think that Amercans made the leap to link Saddam all on their own. But that's my opinion...Cheers..~Ron

Ron is Rong. Simple as that.

:) IM lovin this..

GIGO, garbage in garbage out. That's what we get from our news "sources" to make decisions on.
And any American who will vote for someone just because they have a R or a D after their name is a stupid American.

Ron is Rong. Simple as that.

Hey man...I'm just reporting the facts. I didn't make it up that 70% of Americans thought Saddam was involved a YEAR after 9/11 Someone must have planted the seeds in their heads...

GIGO, garbage in garbage out. That's what we get from our news "sources" to make decisions on.
And any American who will vote for someone just because they have a R or a D after their name is a stupid American.

:I

This is going to be a long post, so I apologize in advance.

1) The fact of the matter is Americans believed there was a STRONG connection between Saddam and 9/11, which clearly isn't the case.

I found the poll which I'm attaching:


Washington Post Poll:
Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 Attacks
Saturday, September 6, 2003

The latest Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll. Interviewing was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

*= less than 0.5 percent

How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?

--------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin.
a. was personally involved in
the September 11 terrorist
attacks 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
b. has provided assistance to
Osama bin Laden and his
terrorist network 82 51 31 14 8 6 4
c. was trying to develop weapons
of mass destruction 84 62 22 14 9 5 3
d. had already developed weapons
of mass destruction 78 51 27 19 12 7 3

a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks

--------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin.
8/11/03 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
2/6/03* 72 34 38 25 16 9 3
10/24/02 71 34 37 25 16 9 4
9/13/01# 78 34 44 12 9 3 9

* 2/6/03 and previous - Time/CNN. "…personally involved in the terrorist attacks
(on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) on September 11th (2001) -- very likely,
somewhat likely…"
# "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist
attacks..."
b,c,d. No trend.



© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company

(EDIT: Sorry the poll charts are mashed together. Hopefully most can correlate the rows and columns.) Here's my opinion on a "somewhat likely" answer to a poll question: It's like asking someone "would you be surprised if Saddam Hussein was involved . . .?" Most people would say, "no, I wouldn't be surprised." So people choose the "somewhat likely" answer instead of the "not very likely" answer. Most people wouldn't be surprised if OJ really did kill his ex-wife, that doesn't make them dumb.

So that leaves 32% that believe Saddam Hussein is "very likely" involved. Not quite the overwhelming majority. But I sympathize with them, being dumb enough to be deceived and manipulated by Bush (sarcasm), especially the 34% that believed it 2 days after the attack when Bush was all over the airwaves blaming Saddam. Oh . . . wait . . . Bush didn't do that, did he. My mistake. Those 34% were just plain dumb for no reason I guess.

I also want you to note the 2nd and 3rd lines to the first paragraph of the poll which talks about errors in public opinion polls. In other words, these public opinion polls really aren't accurate. No one knows for sure how accurate they are, and it really irritates me when people twist them around to prove a faulty point. But I don't blame you for that since almost everyone does.

2) I didn't plagiarize..I quoted. Shall I include footnotes the next time to set you at ease?

I am attaching the article you "quoted" (I'm laughing):


Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01


Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.



Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.

The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. "It's very easy to picture Saddam as a demon," said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. "You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don't like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they know this guy is a bad guy, and it's not hard to put those things together."

Although that belief came without prompting from Washington, Democrats and some independent experts say Bush exploited the apparent misconception by implying a link between Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the months before the war with Iraq. "The notion was reinforced by these hints, the discussions that they had about possible links with al Qaeda terrorists," said Andrew Kohut, a pollster who leads the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

The poll's findings are significant because they help to explain why the public continues to support operations in Iraq despite the setbacks and bloodshed there. Americans have more tolerance for war when it is provoked by an attack, particularly one by an all-purpose villain such as Hussein. "That's why attitudes about the decision to go to war are holding up," Kohut said.

Bush's opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer's congressional report on the attacks states, "The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias."

Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "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."

Moments later, Bush added: "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. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence "overwhelming."

Some Democrats said that although Bush did not make the direct link to the 2001 attacks, his implications helped to turn the public fury over Sept. 11 into support for war against Iraq. "You couldn't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," said Democratic tactician Donna Brazile. "Every member of the administration did the drumbeat. My mother said if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes a gospel truth. This one became a gospel hit."

In a speech Aug. 7, former vice president Al Gore cited Hussein's culpability in the attacks as one of the "false impressions" given by a Bush administration making a "systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology."

Bush's defenders say the administration's rhetoric was not responsible for the public perception of Hussein's involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. While Hussein and al Qaeda come from different strains of Islam and Hussein's secularism is incompatible with al Qaeda fundamentalism, Americans instinctively lump both foes together as Middle Eastern enemies. "The intellectual argument is there is a war in Iraq and a war on terrorism and you have to separate them, but the public doesn't do that," said Matthew Dowd, a Bush campaign strategist. "They see Middle Eastern terrorism, bad people in the Middle East, all as one big problem."

A number of public-opinion experts agreed that the public automatically blamed Iraq, just as they would have blamed Libya if a similar attack had occurred in the 1980s. There is good evidence for this: On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement -- even though the administration had not made a connection. The belief remained consistent even as evidence to the contrary emerged.

"You can say Bush should be faulted for not correcting every single misapprehension, but that's something different than saying they set out deliberately to deceive," said Duke University political scientist Peter D. Feaver. "Since the facts are all over the place, Americans revert to a judgment: Hussein is a bad guy who would do stuff to us if he could."

Key administration figures have largely abandoned any claim that Iraq was involved in the 2001 attacks. "I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a leading hawk on Iraq, said on the Laura Ingraham radio show on Aug. 1.

A top White House official told The Washington Post on July 31: "I don't believe that the evidence was there to suggest that Iraq had played a direct role in 9/11." The official added: "Anything is possible, but we hadn't ruled it in or ruled it out. There wasn't evidence to substantiate that claim."

But the public continues to embrace the connection.

In follow-up interviews, poll respondents were generally unsure why they believed Hussein was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, often describing it as an instinct that came from news reports and their long-standing views of Hussein. For example, Peter Bankers, 59, a New York film publicist, figures his belief that Hussein was behind the attacks "has probably been fed to me in some PR way," but he doesn't know how. "I think that the whole group of people, those with anti-American feelings, they all kind of cooperated with each other," he said.

Similarly, Kim Morrison, 32, a teacher from Plymouth, Ind., described her belief in Hussein's guilt as a "gut feeling" shaped by television. "From what we've heard from the media, it seems like what they feel is that Saddam and the whole al Qaeda thing are connected," she said.

Deborah Tannen, a Georgetown University professor of linguistics who has studied Bush's rhetoric, said it is impossible to know but "plausible" that Bush's words furthered such public impressions. "Clearly, he's using language to imply a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th," she said.

"There is a specific manipulation of language here to imply a connection." Bush, she said, seems to imply that in Iraq "we have gone to war with the terrorists who attacked us."

Tannen said even a gentle implication would be enough to reinforce Americans' feelings about Hussein. "If we like the conclusion, we're much less critical of the logic," she said.

The Post poll, conducted Aug. 7-11, found that 62 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of independents suspected a link between Hussein and 9/11. In addition, eight in 10 Americans said it was likely that Hussein had provided assistance to al Qaeda, and a similar proportion suspected he had developed weapons of mass destruction.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company


I was under the impression when I first read your post of "quotes" that you researched all these yourself and compiled them for this debate. When I read the above Washington Post article yesterday, I thought it was deception on your part to let us believe that you came up with this post on your own. Even the order of your quotes were the same as the article. That's why I made the comment about "rising above" the manipulation. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and say that you didn't mean to imply that this was an original work. But only if you agree that it did seem that way.

Here's something funny, too, in case you doubt a bias in the article: "Bush's defenders say the administration's rhetoric was not responsible for the public perception of Hussein's involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." Note the word rhetoric is used, a word that has negative implications in todays usage.

3) Americans aren't dumb. I should have been more clear on this point. Either: a) Americans are stupid people to believe Saddam was involved (which they are not)
b) Americans were MISLED by their pres. and his cronies into believing Saddam was involved.
I really and truly think it was "b". Do you disagree? I certainly don't think that Amercans made the leap to link Saddam all on their own. But that's my opinion...

I do think the link to Saddam was automatic to many and your poll suggests that as well. There should be another choice: c) it's a natural assumption to think so given the history and circumstances. This is a paragraph from the above article which you chose not to include in your other post: "A number of public-opinion experts agreed that the public automatically blamed Iraq, just as they would have blamed Libya if a similar attack had occurred in the 1980s. There is good evidence for this: On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement -- even though the administration had not made a connection. The belief remained consistent even as evidence to the contrary emerged."

Cheers..~Ron

I don't want to give the impression that I dislike you or your posts. On the contrary, I have always (well, almost always) enjoyed your posts and believe that we would probably be good friends if we both lived near each other. I also have great respect for your country. My school of thinking is "if you can't take it, don't dish it out." So with that in mind, I look forward to your reply. :Beer

Ken

Ken,

As I said in a previous post, I would NEVER blame Americans for thinking Saddam was involved a mere 2 days after the attack. Afterall..Saddam has been made the arch enemy of the United States, and 2 days later that leap of faith I can see. But A full year after the fact, when 70% think Saddam was STILL a "likely" culprit, I just can't understand. I work in the US frequently, and generally Americans aren't dumb, and don't make stupid rash decisions. Which I why I say clearly that they have been spoon fed some of that Saddam nonsense from your gov't. Further, Saddam was no threat militarily to the US. Saddam had in fact no way to reach the US as he had no fixed wing airforce, no ballistic missle beyond 90 mile capability, no Navy to speak of...and a band of 90% drafted soldiers who had no interest in fighting anyways. I have long said, and I think you'll agree, that the US' largest enemy is that of Saudi Arabia. CIA inteliggence shows for CERTAIN that the royal family has had ties with terrorist, and has even headed fund raisers for them. Not to mention most of the 9/11 guilty parties are Saudi nationals. In addition, the Saudi do NOTHING to dissuade or even prevent terrorist attacks against the US. In my opinion, they are the TRUE enemy, and I would not cry foul if the US invaded them tomorrow. Iraq is a joke. Saudi Arabia is not. However, your President has some pretty cosy ties with the Saudi royal family to the point that it stinks. You are a bright guy, and I'm sure your research has unearthed these facts too. It stinks....