Why did Chimp & Co. change their tune on the Iraq-9/11 connection?

[spotbird]

Poll question: Why did Chimp & Co. change their tune on the Iraq-9/11 connection?

They are up to something, but what? There are a lot of theories floating around I was wondering which is the most widely accepted here.

[MercutioATC]

1. I remember a lot of innuendo, but I don't remember them saying

anything about a direct link. They didn't actually SAY it, they just inferred it pretty strongly. Am I mistaken on this?

[Nlighten1]

2. Yes

It would appear that none of them came out and pointed a finger "directly" at Saddam and claimed he was involved with 9-11. Instead there were a series of claims talking about Saddam-Al Qaeda-9/11 in the same sentence. Never really going so far as to make the claim but putting all the "evil" in one sentence hoping it would stick in the collective consious of America.

It worked.

[hang a left]

18. actually they did, someone posted today

somewhere, I will go back and look and post the link

on edit

http.//www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show-mesg&forum=104&topic-id=361053&mesg-id=361053

damn i wish i knew how to cut paste and post

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Condescention Rice

was heard saying on NPR that they never said it exactly, but that the real reason we went into Iraq was to find WMDs. Then NPR played tapes from Shrub's speeches, including the one on the aircraft carrier. What he said could definately be interpreted as saying it, imho.

[rocktivity]

7. You're not mistaken--implying it strongly was precisely their goal

They would have gone out of their way to deny what the media was saying otherwise. And with both the Dems and the natives getting restless, a highly-placed scapegoat deciding to resign due to ill health and having embarassed the Pretzel-Dunce is just what the doctor ordered.


rocknation

[spotbird]

9. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Was the truth but with the intent to deceive. Sexual relations is intercourse with penetration of the vagina and not with a cigar. What the administration did is no different--it was a massive deception, but they can claim to have been technically factual. The difference is that it cost hundreds or thousands of lives and our children’s financial future.

[rustydog]

15. Exactly....I believe cheny stated Saddam had reconstituted

ireaq's Nuclear Weapons and BUSH said:
I don't want a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over New York."

That isn't stating clearly that Saddam has nukes, but is sure is a broad hint. Then add in: "Saddam has authorized the use of chemical missiles to his troops and has dispersed missiles to the battlefield commanders." or, "I believe Saddam is an IMMINENT (Immediate. now, not next month or year) Threat to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

Bush did lie, but only "little" misspeakings!

WE WERE RIGHT. France, Germany, The Entire UN sans America and England were RIGHT!

Impeach the lying bastard, he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people for no legitimate reason.

[spotbird]

20. The first issue on the Democrat’s talking point list

should be this, that it isn’t enough to be “technically factual” citizens expect their government officials to be simply honest. Americans shouldn’t be required to dissect every statement by their President to decipher what the actual meaning was when the message was crystal clear. This administration promised a new standard, it is time to call them on that promise. We impeached the last president supposedly for stretching the limits of technical accuracy when the issue at hand was intensely personal. Here we have GONE TO WAR and the country has been mislead about the reasons. Certainly if the standard is basic honesty there has been a fundamental breech of trust at the highest levels of Government.

[LeahMira]

26. Direct link?

Direct link? No. They did claim that Saddam could sell his weapons to Al Qaeda one of these days (when someone actually found those weapons!).

Thing of it is that about half of all U.S. citizens somehow got the impression that there was a link... that Saddam was behind 9/11... and the administration did absolutely nothing to correct that impression.

Now, imagine they had corrected it... well and early on. Would the country have supported an invasion of Iraq?

Like all the information and misinformation the administration talked about, they told us just what they wanted us to hear and neglected to mention anything that would have made things "too complicated" for the public. Something about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is "too complicated" for this administration to grasp... which is why we have to get some regime change going on here in the U.S.A.

[spotbird]

27. This was more than a “misunderstanding”

I would argue that the appropriate word here is not corrected the belief, but communicated the fact. If they had been honest from the start the war would have been a harder sell, so they lied.

When I ask my son, “Did you clean your room?” he answers that he did. When I check I find it still a mess he explains that he cleaned it last week and my question wasn’t specific enough. The kid lied, he knows it, I know it, and the technical correctness of his answer won’t save him.

The public knows when they have been lied to in the same way. 70% of the population believed there was a connection because the administration led them to that conclusion. If the administration is going to now assert that they never made that claim specifically, people are going to realize that they were lied to, intentionally.

[hang a left]

3. none of the above

They are trying to put some distance between themselves and the lies ahead of the great storm that is comin their way

[amber dog democrat]

11. It will be terrific

when it hits. Eventually all credibility will be gone.


The chimp will be like the wizard of Oz after Toto pulls away the curtain

Sic' em ! Good dogie.

[bluedog]

5. I think

theres going to be some damning proof that they lied about all events including 9-11...something is going to erupt and they are trying to backtrack their motives....on Invading Iraq

[Beetwasher]

6. Here's What I Think (None of the Above)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=363481

[amber dog democrat]

8. its another big lie

to side step being held accountable for a war under false pretenses.
Inuendo got the American public to believe there was a link, but now with the election cycle heating up, its time for fancy footwork to avoid being discredited. This lie has run its course and needs to be retired - to make way for new ones.

[caledesi]

10. Here's what I believe is the reason:

*'s poll numbers are plummeting.

Many of the Dems have taken off their pink tutus and are calling him on his lies. (Ted Kenneday, Max Cleland etc)

ALL of the candidates are bashing him for his "fake" war. I think this is the one that is most powerful because our troops are dying on a daily basis with no end in sight; Iraq is a f*cking mess; and we have no allies to help us (even when they were bribed). Yeah, he's a united; not a divider.

They had to do something...I mean * doesn't lie, does he?

[JPace]

28. "Here's what I believe is the reason:"

"Many of the Dems have taken off their pink tutus and are calling him on his lies. (Ted Kenneday, Max Cleland etc)"

You have summed it up perfectly.

[gulliver]

12. Trying to climb down before the Kay report hits.

They are trying to get their "bad news" out as soon as possible. I don't think it is working this time.

[spotbird]

13. What's the Kay report?

Is that the report that will say there isn't any WMD in Iraq? It seems to me that they would want to stick to the 9/11 guns even more once the WMD fraud is exposed. Why do you think that the Kay report would make them back off?

[gulliver]

19. I think the report will probably say "no WMDs"

I think the Bushies may be sort of preparing for a hurricane. The "no al Qaeda link" scandal is like a big dead tree right next to their house. They are trying to cut it down and get it out of the way before the storm hits.

I think it isn't working though. To me, Cheney's MTP appearance was almost a crack-up. He stammered, adjusted his tie, even coughed before talking about the $87 B. Then Bush was, if anything, worse. Bush looked "caught."

In other words, they may have been trying to preemptively cut down a tree that threatened their house, but it landed on their house when they cut it down.

[spotbird]

21. But since there will be verification that there is no WMD

wouldn’t it be timely to continue to perpetuate the 9/11 farce because once they give up both lies folks might start asking themselves, “Why are we there again?” Or is your point that they think it’s time to clear the air about the more flagrant deceptions now and let the dust settle before the election?

[gulliver]

23. Yep.

Look at it this way. 70% of the people think they had at least one good reason for attacking Saddam, avenging 9/11. Unfortunately, that reason is false. It's an avalanche waiting to happen.

Bush's approval ratings are at 46-52% now. Think what they will be when 70% of the people find out they have been grossly and deliberately misled.

[spotbird]

25. I guess that’s why this new move is so mystifying.

Most of that 70% never would have known any differently and some of the ones they’ve duped will never trust them again. This could really hurt them so there must be a huge upside down the road.

[Warren Stuart]

14. It's the 70%

This goes back to Abe Lincoln (or PT Barnum) who said "You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

They realized that they oversold the Saddam/911 connection, 70% of the country believes it is true, when in fact they know it's not. When the country at large wakes up to fact that they were duped, then there goes the straight-shooter image.

The only question is why did Cheney go off-message?

They need to keep this lie current for the sake of their deranged base, but at the same time provide deniability for Bush.

They are trying to have it both ways, if they pull this off then they are truly the Spin-Masters of the Universe.

[many a good man]

22. 70% -- 70% of the Time

Warren missed the middle part of Abe's line: "and you can fool MOST of the people MOST of the time, but..." W, Rummy, and Condi pretty clearly state there was no connection; this covers them from the blame for this misperception. Dick adds ambiguity to keep the ruse going. Most voters aren't political junkies so its hard to say what all this will do to the poll numbers on this question. Probably lower it to lo 50s again. I tend think their plan is to subtly blame Cheney and bump him off the ticket in 04 for 'health' reasons...

[newyawker99]

29. Hi TorchesAndPitchforks!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Dr Fate]

24. I agree witht that analysis...

...pretty sound...

[arcane1]

16. unsure, but my guess-of-the-moment is:

to deflate the topic for the Dem candidates, since they are using this (and other things) to hammer Bush with. Now they can say the Dems are telling Gore-like tall tales about 9/11 claims that never technically happened

besides, in order for "doublethink" to work properly, you have to keep it warm, USE it once in awhile so people continue to be good at it, otherwise they'll start to catch on

but my guesses could change easily as more happens, and I drink more :evilgrin:

[Hamlette]

17. Wolfowitz started it

He said on 9-6-03 there was no connection, they got scared, sent Cheney out on 9-14 to say there was a connection but it didn't fly.

OR

They want to say Clark is a crazy because of his comments that he was contacted and told to connect Saddam to 9-11 right after it happened. They will paint him as insane and a liar since they NEVER suspected Saddam.

[ignatius]

30. I think they are counting on the public to be brainwashed once again

into thinking they never directly or indirectly linked the Iraqis with 9-11, so that they can continue with their goal of dominating the ME by attacking another country.

In the back of my mind, I think of the secret government established after 9-11 that was working in underground bunkers unbeknowst to the democratic senators. I remember the increased warnings a few weeks ago that AL Quadi has chemical weapons and is capable of using them. My fear is that either the US or some european country(most likely Britain) is attacked with smallpox and we blame the next ME victim. Iran would be my guess, but who knows?

What I do know is that all the publicity about Rummy, W,Rice,etc. not linking Iraq and 9-11 is being printed for a reason and one should never trust or turn your back on this evil pack of dogs.

[NNN0LHI]

31. None of the above. It is because Clark entered the race n/t

[spotbird]

32. If they don't plan to pin 9/11 on Clark then what is the connection?nt

[NNN0LHI]

33. They know the truth is going to come out now because people will listen...

...to a 4 Star general and the state controlled media will not be able to laugh his comments off as some kind of nut either. There you go.

Don

[ProfessorGAC]

34. None Of The Above. It's Damage Control

They know the sweater is unraveling and are trying to frame the debate, as usual.

Now, they can't be accused of lying because they "came clean".

The Professor