Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[specious_reasons]

Well, how about simply because the public knew Saddam was one of our main enemies, whom we still had unfinished business with? You think people are actually incapable of deducing possibile suspects without being spoonfed an answer from CNN?

Do you have an alternate explanation for such a widespread belief on 9/13/2001? Perhaps some Bush quotes from those three days about Iraq? Or maybe you don't. Can youexplain the prevalance of that belief in any way that connects it to Bush? No, I don't think you can, which is why you didn't advance such a theory but instead just hoped I wouldn't be able to explain something that doesn't take much explaining.

Do you have a reference to a poll which indicates a "widespread belief" that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 so soon after the fact? I'd be mildly surprised. My consumption of the news after 9/11 fairly quickly identified Al Qaeda as the primary suspect, and that Afghanistan was the base of their operations. Therefore "the public" was "spoonfed" the name Al Qaeda very early on.

IIRC, Bush's first address to Congress laid the blame squarely on Al Qaeda.

I suppose that some people needed to believe that AQ needed a "state actor" to support it terrorist activities, but the Taliban fit the bill better than Hussein.

I guess some people could believe - even after the onslaught of news - that Iraq could have provided material support, and it's even a reasonable suspicion. It's just not supported by the known facts.

ETA: Harris Poll : September 19, 2001
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=257

Who and What is to Blame

The administration tells us that they believe that Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks and most people believe he was. No poll has shown large numbers believing, as yet, that any specific countries or governments supported or helped plan the attacks. However, that could change overnight if such charges are made.

One poll, (The Los Angeles Times) reports a plurality believing that the attack was "a direct result of U.S. policy of intervention around the world" and a majority believing the attack "was a direct result of U.S. policy in the Middle East."

Half the public blames poor airport security "a great deal," far more than blame the FBI, the CIA or the federal government.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you have a reference to a poll which indicates a "widespread belief" that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 so soon after the fact?

Here you go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

Note that this data shows poll results for several dates. The numbers start out at 78% of people on 9/13/2001 responding that they found it either very or somewhat likely that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. The trend over time is a slow decrease in this number.

I guess some people could believe - even after the onslaught of news - that Iraq could have provided material support, and it's even a reasonable suspicion. It's just not supported by the known facts.

Sure. That's true. But I know that Bush didn't plant that belief in people, and so I see no reason to conclude that he's at fault for making people continue to believe that when he never said it. Mark has tried to argue otherwise, but has no evidence to demonstrate this purported effect.

One poll, (The Los Angeles Times) reports a plurality believing that the attack was "a direct result of U.S. policy of intervention around the world" and a majority believing the attack "was a direct result of U.S. policy in the Middle East."

Which just goes to show that the public will often come to conclusions independent of what Bush tells them.

 

[Jocko]

Here you go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

Note that this data shows poll results for several dates. The numbers start out at 78% of people on 9/13/2001 responding that they found it either very or somewhat likely that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. The trend over time is a slow decrease in this number.

Wow, you realize what this means, don't you? That in the first 48 hours the Bush administration "convinced" THREE QUARTERS OF AMERICANS that Saddam was involved - you remember, the first days when all the news covered the relative silence coming from Washington, and the lackluster speed with which Bush returned to the White House, and didn't really say a whole lot of anything?

And then - this is the diabolical bit - once this "concerted disinformation campaign" began, the number of people believing the "lies" actually DECREASED. Sinister, no?

So Mark and Co. are essentially labeling Bush administration as the most effective, yet the LEAST effective propaganda machine of all time...simultaneously..

Obviously an attempt to confuse the left. Apparently it worked.

Sure. That's true. But I know that Bush didn't plant that belief in people, and so I see no reason to conclude that he's at fault for making people continue to believe that when he never said it. Mark has tried to argue otherwise, but has no evidence to demonstrate this purported effect.

It's only anecdotal, but on 9/11 my house became the gathering place for my friends and the talk was of Saddam before the last flight went down in PA. It was a popular theory - without ANY encouragement, though I concede it was there - because it was plausible. It also happened to be wrong, but it was not believed initially because anyone told us.... it was believed because it made sense to us.

Which just goes to show that the public will often come to conclusions independent of what Bush tells them.

No, no, no... all blessings and all evil flow from Washington. The average American is powerless to formulate his own thoughts. Please report to Dick Durbin for re-education ASAP.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's only anecdotal, but on 9/11 my house became the gathering place for my friends and the talk was of Saddam before the last flight went down in PA. It was a popular theory - without ANY encouragement, though I concede it was there - because it was plausible. It also happened to be wrong, but it was not believed initially because anyone told us.... it was believed because it made sense to us.

Something isn't right about this...

Ah! I've got it! Your house was actually the "undisclosed location" where Dick Cheney was hiding! He whispered theories of Saddam's involvement in everyone's ear, and soon everyone thought they came up with the idea on their own! Devious, Jocko, quite devious. But you didn't fool me! Mark has opened my eyes to the error of my ways!

 

[Jocko]

Something isn't right about this...

Ah! I've got it! Your house was actually the "undisclosed location" where Dick Cheney was hiding! He whispered theories of Saddam's involvement in everyone's ear, and soon everyone thought they came up with the idea on their own! Devious, Jocko, quite devious. But you didn't fool me! Mark has opened my eyes to the error of my ways!

Well, I'm not at liberty to discuss it in detail, but let's just say that my housemate, let's call him Karl R., isn't too conscientious about replacing all the beers he tells me have been sent to Gitmo for interrogation.

 

[Manny]

Wow, you realize what this means, don't you? That in the first 48 hours the Bush administration "convinced" THREE QUARTERS OF AMERICANS that Saddam was involved - you remember, the first days when all the news covered the relative silence coming from Washington, and the lackluster speed with which Bush returned to the White House, and didn't really say a whole lot of anything?

And then - this is the diabolical bit - once this "concerted disinformation campaign" began, the number of people believing the "lies" actually DECREASED. Sinister, no?

It gets better. Nearly three quarters of Americans at that time also believed that it was either "good" or a "must" that Saddam Hussein be overthrown even if he could not be linked directly to the attacks (cite), and yet Bush now wallows in the low-30's approval area because he did precisely and exactly that. Boy, that Rove is a diabolical in the way he manipulates public opinion.

 

[specious_reasons]

Here you go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

Note that this data shows poll results for several dates. The numbers start out at 78% of people on 9/13/2001 responding that they found it either very or somewhat likely that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. The trend over time is a slow decrease in this number.

Sure. That's true. But I know that Bush didn't plant that belief in people, and so I see no reason to conclude that he's at fault for making people continue to believe that when he never said it. Mark has tried to argue otherwise, but has no evidence to demonstrate this purported effect.

Which just goes to show that the public will often come to conclusions independent of what Bush tells them.

Wow. Label me mildly surprised. My impression of the general public has not been improved.

I would have liked to see a data point between 09/13/01 and 10/24/02 - a full year between polls. I wonder if there is one, especially since the full court press on the Iraq War had already started by October '02. Heck - that was 9 months after the "axis of evil" speech.

 

[specious_reasons]

The Harris Poll article I found has a remarkable different conclusion from the WaPo poll. I wonder what the difference is - it's hard to know based on the lack of numbers from the one I found.

 

[a_unique_person]

It gets better. Nearly three quarters of Americans at that time also believed that it was either "good" or a "must" that Saddam Hussein be overthrown even if he could not be linked directly to the attacks (cite), and yet Bush now wallows in the low-30's approval area because he did precisely and exactly that. Boy, that Rove is a diabolical in the way he manipulates public opinion.

Sounds like push polling to me. "The Chaser" satirical TV show had a skit been asking Americans if Iran should be invaded next, and shown them a map of Australia. They had plenty of people agreeing it should be. You could have asked if just about any country should be invaded the next day, and there would have been plenty of angry americans who would have agreed to anything.

 

[BPSCG]

Sounds like push polling to me.

Any evidence to support that hypothesis?

"The Chaser" satirical TV show had a skit been asking Americans if Iran should be invaded next, and shown them a map of Australia. They had plenty of people agreeing it should be. You could have asked if just about any country should be invaded the next day, and there would have been plenty of angry americans who would have agreed to anything.

...other than an Australian comedy skit, I mean?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sounds like push polling to me.

Perhaps. In which case you'd better worry that the 45% number used to argue Bush deceived the American public could also be push polling. Either you take all the polls as indicative of something (in which case Bush isn't the culprit for mistaken belief), or nothing (in which case you can't reach any conclusion) - beyond that, you need a specific reason to prefer one poll over another, and especially the results of the same poll on one date rather than another date (that becomes VERY problematic to argue). In other words, I think you've conceded the argument.

 

[Jocko]

Perhaps. In which case you'd better worry that the 45% number used to argue Bush deceived the American public could also be push polling. Either you take all the polls as indicative of something (in which case Bush isn't the culprit for mistaken belief), or nothing (in which case you can't reach any conclusion) - beyond that, you need a specific reason to prefer one poll over another, and especially the results of the same poll on one date rather than another date (that becomes VERY problematic to argue). In other words, I think you've conceded the argument.

You obviously have no appreciation for AUP's highly-developed sense of circular logic. Your loss.

 

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps. In which case you'd better worry that the 45% number used to argue Bush deceived the American public could also be push polling. Either you take all the polls as indicative of something (in which case Bush isn't the culprit for mistaken belief), or nothing (in which case you can't reach any conclusion) - beyond that, you need a specific reason to prefer one poll over another, and especially the results of the same poll on one date rather than another date (that becomes VERY problematic to argue). In other words, I think you've conceded the argument.

After 9/11, angry people wanted to attack those responsible. As the Rumsfeld quote shows, people in the Bush administration were only to keen to harness that anger in other directions.

 

[Jocko]

After 9/11, angry people wanted to attack those responsible. As the Rumsfeld quote shows, people in the Bush administration were only to keen to harness that anger in other directions.

Round and round he goes. It's true because it's true; the evidence that supports it is valid because it's true; the evidence that doesn't is flawed because it's true. It's especially true because AUP was 8,000 miles away when it happened, but he read it in The Age so it's truer than the truths known by people where were actually there.

Nice work, AUP. Good to see you bringing your gift to a non Palestinian thread for a change.

 

[specious_reasons]

It gets better. Nearly three quarters of Americans at that time also believed that it was either "good" or a "must" that Saddam Hussein be overthrown even if he could not be linked directly to the attacks (cite), and yet Bush now wallows in the low-30's approval area because he did precisely and exactly that. Boy, that Rove is a diabolical in the way he manipulates public opinion.

Not that my predictive power on this thread has been very keen, but I understood that Americans in general have wanted Hussein to be overthrown since the 1st Gulf War. It was a popular notion. It's my feeling that the Republicans in Congress didn't back Clinton in 1998 because they didn't want him to start such a popular war.

I'm still curious why the polls drew such different conclusions. I'd love to get number from the other poll, but I'd probably have to pay for it.

 

[a_unique_person]

The searchable Waxman database
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

 

[a_unique_person]

Rumsfeld, from the database

"We said from the outset that there are several terrorist networks that have global reach and that there were several countries that were harboring terrorists that have global reach. We weren't going into Iraq when we were hit on September 11. And the question is: Well, what do you do about that? If you know there are terrorists and you know there's terrorist states -- Iraq's been a terrorist state for decades -- and you know there are countries harboring terrorists, we believe, correctly, I think, that the only way to deal with it is -- you can't just hunker down and hope they won't hit you again. You simply have to take the battle to them. And we have been consistently working on the Al Qaeda network. We've captured a large number of those folks -- captured or killed -- just as we've now captured or killed a large number of the top 55 Saddam Hussein loyalists."
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source:Meet the Press, NBC (11/2/2003).

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]


[/FONT]

 

[a_unique_person]

"Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and biological-agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda. The reports of these contacts have been increasing since 1998. We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of -- weapons of mass destruction capabilities. We do have -- I believe it's one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members. There is, I'm told, also some other information of varying degrees of reliability that supoprts that conclusion of their cooperation."
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source:Defense Department Regular Briefing, Defense Department (9/26/2002).

From the database
[/FONT]

 

[a_unique_person]

From the database.

Public Statement of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: "It is the nexus between an Al-Qaeda type network and other terrorist network and a terrorist state like Saddam Hussein who has that weapons of mass destruction. As we sit here, there are senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They are there."
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source:Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Jim Lehrer, PBS (9/18/2002).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why This Statement is Misleading: [/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

[/FONT]

 

[Jocko]

Hey, AUP... how about you man up for a change and explain what you think is problematic in those two Rumsfeld quotes? They seem rather accurate to me.

Please, educate me.