Bush not responsible for Iraq/9-11 link belief, huh??

[Brotherjohn]

Did this steam anyone as much as me this weekend?

In the Washington Post article Saturday (Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32862-2003Sep5.html), authors Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane hardly let Bush off the hook, with much of the text focusing on statements Bush has made linking Saddam and 9-11, thus possibly nurturing the unfounded impression.

Yet the article featured the following paragraph:

"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."

This spectacularly galling disclaimer from the Bush administration flies in the face of everything Bush has said consistently right up until the speech yesterday. Bush and Co. have done everything they could possibly do (barring presenting any actual evidence) to link the two! Even in last night's speech!! According to http://tvnewslies.org/html/terror_trap.html, the word "terror" was mentioned 27 times, along with three references to Al Qaeda and three more to 9-11.

The article quotes a teacher identified as having a "gut feeling" that Saddam was responsible as saying: "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". This is probably where many people got their "gut feeling", from the media. What no one says is that "the media" reports that have led to this belief have usually been soundbites in which George W. Bush and Co. have mentioned Saddam and 9-11 in the same breath! So when people say that it seems in the media that "they feel" that "Saddam and the whole al Qaeda thing are connected", the "they" is the Bush administration, not the media. The media have simply reported (admittedly with too few questions) this belief of the Bush administration.

Contrary to the statement above, the "administration's rhetoric" is probably the sole reason why most people continue to have this unfounded "gut feeling", because he (and others in his administration), continue to do just the opposite of what the administration shill claims above: they treat the war on terror and the war on Iraq as one and the same.

This shameless, and continuing, deception cuts to the very core of the reasons for war in Iraq. It has less basis than the WMD reason. But since that one has been firmly repudiated, it's all they can hang their hat on. Being harder to solidly disprove, they will continue to do so until people get sick of it. And people are getting sick of it.

[arcane1]

1. like Bush blaming the media for the "march to war"

and then blaming the bad economy on THAT

hey, maybe there was some asshole on tv marching us to war???

you know, we are going to be dissecting lies for a LONG time after these devils are gone...

[neuvocat]

2. Its called an equivocation.

An equivocation basically is used to imply something for the purpose of misleading someone and then saying they are not responsible for it.

The basic form of the argument is this: Bin Laden bombed the WTC towers, therefore we must fight terror in Iraq.

That "gut feeling" is exactly what the Bush admin intended in order to shore up support for a war that is illegal.

So if Bush were to be called on the fact that there is no direct link between 911 and Saddam Hussein, he would simply turn around and say "Hey, I never ever said there was. What gave you that idea?"

Still, Bush got himself into enough crap over it that he could still be charged with other crimes.

[Brotherjohn]

4. Sure, that's obvious. They never said, verbatim, "there is a link".

They also never said, word for word, "Iraq is an imminent threat". But everything else they said implied both of these things.

The case can be made now that they are responsible for fostering a belief that they knew to be untrue... that they MISLED us into war on the Saddam/9-11 link as well as the alleged WMDs.

This is all the more galling considering that the administration is now out there claiming that "there is a war in Iraq and a war on terrorism and you have to separate them", when Bush himself and everyone under him has been doing the exact opposite for months! They are making this statement as a way of clearing Bush from having anything whatsoever to do with this false impression. It amounts to Bush saying that the American people came to this conclusion sompletely on their own, and Bush's (repeated ad nauseum) statements had nothing whatsoever to do with it. This complete and utter bullshit.

Call it "equivocation", hedging... call it whatever. You can play word games all you want. The point is, Bush did everything he could to link Hussein to 9-11, while having zero evidence of that assertion. That is deception, pure and simple. It's the second BIG LIE (along with the WMDs) that was used to convince us that an unnecessary war was necessary.

[Paragon]

3. America wants revenge, not justice

Thereby, anyone in the Middle East is a target. As much as I'd like to vouch for our integrity, it is just that simple. We're that simple.

[Brotherjohn]

5. I think you are too pessimistic. Many of us may be that simple...

... but not most.

Look at the recent polls. They are plummeting, and Bush is approaching levels of other one-termers (see his dad). The citizenry are not as callous and vengeful as you may think. At least they may be coming around to thinking Bush's policies are not in our best interest (domestic and terrorism-wise).

Yes, his overall approval is still around 50%. But it's the "stick together" mentality still in effect after 9-11 (that event was the ONLY reason accounting for his relatively high approval numbers). That effect, however, is just about gone. His numbers have steadily decreased ever since 9-11 (but for a small bump after Iraq) and he is back down to earth, and still in an approval freefall. Perhaps more importantly, most of his re-elect numbers are now in the 40s (some in the 30s).

The CNN/Time poll the other day stating that 29% would definitely vote for Bush, while 41% would definitely NOT... THOSE are the people you're talking about. THAT 29% is his core support.

Many of them may still be troubled by what Bush has done in Iraq, and that he has misled us. But they are willing to forgive that because, for one, most of them are likley pro-life. It would take an awful lot of screwing up (and many more wars with many more deaths) to negate what they see as his ability to perhaps "save" millions of babies by eventually overturning Roe v Wade. The remainder (with some overlap) may simply be the vengeful, racist, neo-con, empire-lovers you speak about. They would just as soon pave the entire planet (except America) and paint it red, white and blue.

But barring massive voter fraud that would put Florida 2000 to shame, this core cannot win the White House for Bush again in 2004.