The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.
In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq. But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.
Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.
This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don't rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.
The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."
Future fallout
In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.
"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over."
Antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg says it's important to understand why public opinion appears to be playing out differently in the US and Europe. In fact, both peoples express a desire to work through the UN. But the citizens get different messages from their leaders. "Americans have been told by their president [that Hussein is] a threat to security, and so they believe that," says Mr. Ellsberg. "It's rather amazing, in light of that, that so many Americans do want this to be authorized by the UN. After all, the president keeps saying we don't have to ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves."
• Staff writers Liz Marlantes and Faye Bowers contributed to this report.
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 11:31 a.m. ET June 18, 2004WASHINGTON - Blaming what he called "lazy" reporters for blurring the distinction, Vice President Dick Cheney said that while "overwhelming" evidence shows a past relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Bush administration never accused Saddam of helping with the Sept. 11 attacks.
Cheney, however, insisted the case was not closed into whether there was an Iraq connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. "We don't know."
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's still crap. If you are just going to ignore the meaning of direct just to suit your own purposes, you have left the realm of reasonable comment.Direct means what it means. Don't make out that it doesn't just because you are determined ti hang Bush. I have absolutely no patience for people that do that sort of thing.
funny, because i have no patience for is people who are so engrained in their own politics that they will deliberately deny the routine deceit which led a country to war and support a word game which led to this mess. its one thing to acknowledge the constant play on words which never technically directly connected hussein and 9/11, but completely ridiculous to deny that the 2 have been mentioned in the same passage of every single speech he made in attempting to sell the war.
in other words, point it out if you wish, you are correct in that. but if you would go on to try to exonerate him based on that, WOW dude. WOW.
Originally posted by PVS
funny, because i have no patience for is people who are so engrained in their own politics that they will deliberately deny the routine deciet which led a country to war and support a word game which led to this mess. its one thing to acknowledge the constant play on words which never technically directly connected hussein and 9/11, but completely ridiculous to deny that the 2 have been mentioned in the same passage of every singe speech he made in attempting to sell the war.in other words, point it out if you wish, you are correct in that. but if you would go on to try to exhonerate him based on that, WOW dude. WOW.
It's not a word game. That is a BS accusation that you guys are making up.
It is an absolute fact that he never made a direct connection. Sorry, but it IS, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.
My main point Ush is that his administration went out of their way to link Saddam to Al Queda. He did that Immediately post 9/11. It was an obvious attempt to rally the country, and sew the seeds.
It was a deliberate smoke and mirrors act that is now being dismissed as a "misunderstanding". He may not have said that there was a direct link between the two, but he and his administration indeed fostered that misconception.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
My main point Ush is that his administration went out of their way to link Saddam to Al Queda. He did that Immediately post 9/11. It was an obvious attempt to rally the country, and sew the seeds.It was a deliberate smoke and mirrors act that is now being dismissed as a "misunderstanding". He may not have said that there was a direct link between the two, but he and his administration indeed fostered that misconception.
Ush isn't denying any of that. Merely that there wasn't an attempt to make a direct connection between Hussein and 9/11, nothing more.
No, you are misunderstanding, Kharma. That he made a link with Al Qaeda is not even vaguely in doubt.
What he never did is make a direct link between Hussein and 9/11. To do that, he would have actually had to have said:
"Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11."
Never at any point was this done.
This is a simple matter of understanding language. If you give someone a gun and then that person shoots someone dead, the only person directly responsible for the murder is the person who pulled the trigger, even if the person who supplied the gun still has to share some of the blane. The supplier's involvement is indirect. That is the entire point of having these words in the language.
The people they directly linked were Al Qaeda, and no-one else.
what is annoying ush, is not your denial that bush directly linked the two in plain wording, because you are correct in pointing that out. what is unnerving is your denial of the constant implication of a connection made from 9/11 until we went to war. and it just seems that way, although technically off topic as it all is. 9/11 was used to make us scared of saddam.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
My main point Ush is that his administration went out of their way to link Saddam to Al Queda. He did that Immediately post 9/11. It was an obvious attempt to rally the country, and sew the seeds.It was a deliberate smoke and mirrors act that is now being dismissed as a "misunderstanding". He may not have said that there was a direct link between the two, but he and his administration indeed fostered that misconception.
Yes I agree that is is smoke a mirrors, but not for the reasons you are claiming.
Again, you are making that up.
It was never implied that there was a direct connection. Never EVER.
His justication for war was rejecting weapon inspectors, threatening global security, and that they were helping the people that WERE directly responsible.
Never did he remove the middle man, not even by implication.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, you are making that up.It was never implied that there was a direct connection. Never EVER.
His justication for war was rejecting weapon inspectors, threatening global security, and that they were helping the people that WERE directly responsible.
Never did he remove the middle man, not even by implication.
i'm making up that bush constantly evoked 9/11 in his pre-war speeches? thats all my own fantasy? you're actually going to attempt that or am i misunderstanding you?
If a direct implication wasn't intended, then why would he wait three years to put the misconception to rest? When he stood on that pile of rubble in the middle of Manhattan, he promised the country and the world that we were going to catch and punish those responsible. His administration scared teh sh*t out of everyone by saying that the disasters were going to get worse once they (the terrorists) got their hands on nuclear weapons. Then he said that Iraq was stocking "weapons of mass destruction" Well, here we are five years later and the only "ace of spades" we have in custody is Saddam. Were as much effort directed into finding bin Laden we would have been pulling him out of a hole in the ground. The only reason we haven't found him is because we aren't looking for him. And the only reason we aren't looking for him is because his family is in bed with the Saudi Royal family...and Bush's is a the third hand in that circle jerk. There's a reason his family got shuffled out of this country on 9/11 when all other flights had been grounded.