Latest Poll Number for Bush and GOP

[Tom In VA]

It was a way to remind people of 9/11 without implying, in any reasonable sense, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

He didn't imply it in any reasonable sense, dumbfuck.

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. There have been numerous examples posted where he did exactly that.

Actually Terry the lack of comprehension might fall squarely on your shoulders here.

I see an implication that we need to change how we deal with certain types in the world, perhaps even be more aggressive than we had been in the past in our dealings with:

1. Al Queda
2. Iraq, w/ Saddam
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. ?

I see Bush making this implication using 9-11 as an example of how vulnerable we have let ourselves get. I see Bush implying that the world had come to mistake our kindness for weakness and due to 9-11, that would have to change.

Nowhere do I see the implication that Saddam was directly responsible for 9-11.

[Felix]

Nowhere do I see the implication that Saddam was directly responsible for 9-11.

Did Bush come out and say "Hussein was responsible"? No, of course not because that was a lie they couldn't sell......

but for you to tell me that my perception that Bush continually tried to connect the two is wrong is extremely arrogant of you......

[Mikey]

Bush never said "Saddam was responsible", in so many words, but he very clearly implied it, on many occasions. The numerous polls in 2003 that had 70% or more of Americans believing it is clear evidence of the success of this intentionally misleading misinformation strategy.


http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409c.asp

In a memo President Bush sent on March 18, 2003, notifying Congress that he was launching the war against Iraq, he declared that he was acting

"to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. "

[Tom In VA]

Nowhere do I see the implication that Saddam was directly responsible for 9-11.

Did Bush come out and say "Hussein was responsible"? No, of course not because that was a lie they couldn't sell......

but for you to tell me that my perception that Bush continually tried to connect the two is wrong is extremely arrogant of you......

My whole point has been, and I thank you for having the courage to admit it, is that it is just that .... a subjective perception held by an individual or as the case may be a collection of individuals. Perceptions can be wrong, and collide with others. Your perception, my perception, can actually be in conflict with each other and BOTH be wrong .... or better yet .... variations of reality.


Once again, my perception of the information is that Bush was connecting our vulnerability and the devestating effects of the attack on 9-11 and three other primary "threats" to our nation.


1. Al Queda
2. Iraq, w/ Saddam
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. ?


Everything I read by Bush indicates the following.

1. We were attacked by Al Queda on 9-11, worst attack on American soil. We need to do something about that.

2. Since we were attacked by Al Queda on 9-11, we need to be more agressive in how we deal with Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Those states, in one form or another have two very threatening things in common. They are pursuing WMD and they are known to deal and work with terrorist organizations.


Now are you arrogant enough to say my perception is wrong ? And at the same time provide links and text that supports my perception more than yours ?

[Felix]

Why is that you can't find one single quote to back up your misguided opinion?

why do you insist on trolling badly......

the problem with trying to have any type of reasonable discussion with you is that you always fuck it up......

[Mikey]

Bush never said "Saddam was responsible", in so many words, but he very clearly implied it, on many occasions.

Yet you can't produce one single example of this alleged implication.

Uh....read the quote dipshit.

[Mikey]

Tom, you are obviously an intelligent person, and your "selective perception" may be completely valid.

However from what the polls showed, 70% of America had a different perception. Of course it's not the Administration's fault the 70% of America is so dense that they got it wrong, and it's not Administration's responsibility to set them straight, either, is it? Especially when their selective perception only strengthens the Administration's position.

[Tom In VA]

Especially when their perception only strengthens the Administration's position.

FTFY You had to add the "false" in there, one small blemish on your statement but other than that your perception is clearing up.

[Felix]

Tom, perceptions are neither right nor wrong...they are what they are.....

The method of speechwriting they employed to connect the two events without actually saying they were connected is a week long study course in Political Science 101.......

[Mikey]

Especially when their perception only strengthens the Administration's position.

FTFY You had to add the "false" in there, one small blemish on your statement but other than that your perception is clearing up.

I'm learning, oh Wise As..errr...One.

:wink:

[Tom In VA]

Especially when their perception only strengthens the Administration's position.

FTFY You had to add the "false" in there, one small blemish on your statement but other than that your perception is clearing up.

I'm learning, oh Wise As..errr...One.

:wink:

I just want to say for a good man, you're a good man is what I want to say.

[Tom In VA]

Tom, perceptions are neither right nor wrong...they are what they are.....

The method of speechwriting they employed to connect the two events without actually saying they were connected is a week long study course in Political Science 101.......

The english language allows for the prefix "mis" to be attached to the word "perception". "Mis", meaning incorrect, wrong, etc.. etc..

That leads me to believe that there is such as thing as in incorrect or "wrong" perception.

I am subjective in my perception of the situation, as are you. Bush uttered 9-11, Al Queda and the "Axis" composed of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in the same breath on several occasions. This is true.

Where you see an implication that he was linking Saddam with that one attack, I do not.

Where I see that he was not linking Saddam with that one attack and accurately and precisely describing the situation in which this country finds itself, you do not. To me it's always been about avoiding another 9-11, specifically one with WMD. Secondarily it's been about protecting interests in the world from the adverse effects WMD would have in those regions. The Middle East, Europe, and Asia notwithstanding.

To me, 9-11 has always been raised as a "This could happen again and be worst if we don't do something different with Saddam, Iran and North Korea".

Where I see a pretense based on the fullfillment of his oath of office. You see a man willing to get people killed, risk his name and legacy in the story of time, for a false pretense.

I'm sure we can both agree. It's a lot nicer and safer to be ironing these things out on a message board than it would be to have to be responsible for decisions on the order of magnitude Bush has to take.

One last difference, while I can perceive Bush as being some diabolical self serving pawn ..... it seems you can't entertain the notion the man is simply just doing his job and fullfilling his oath to this Country, it's Constitution, and it's people. I find logical fallacies and base hypocrisy when I entertain the perceptions of the former. So I choose the latter.

Either way, it is what it is regardless of how it's perceived.

[RadioFan]

But that's the whole problem with "implications", they are subjective as subjective gets.

A complete shift in public opinion regarding 9/11 and Saddam in roughly 18 months came from, what, thin air?

[Tom In VA]

But that's the whole problem with "implications", they are subjective as subjective gets.

A complete shift in public opinion regarding 9/11 and Saddam in roughly 18 months came from, what, thin air?

I cited the sources as I perceived them to be already.

They came from people with a vested interest in painting Bush as a liar.

[Felix]

It came from Democrats putting words in his mouth.

[Tom In VA]

It came from Democrats putting words in his mouth.

Are you denying that there are those within this country that stand to gain by encouraging the perception we've been discussing ?


Take a look at these statements.

"Felix perceives that Bush is implying a direct link between Saddam and 9-11. The facts don't support this, therefore Felix concludes Bush is lying".

and

"Tom perceives that Bush never implied a direct link between Saddam and 9-11. The facts don't support this, therefore Tom concludes Bush did not lie".


I contend that there are parties that craft commentary and use quotes to stimulate and encourage both our perceptions. Why can't you be honest enough to do the same. Especially since "honesty" or lack thereof with Bush seems to be your biggest issue.

[RadioFan]

Public support for the idea that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 went from 3% immediately after 9/11 to 45% in March 2003.

Tom,

So what you're saying is that those who had an interest in painting Bush as a liar were responsible for the shift in public opinion as we were going into Iraq?

Huh?

Btw, Bush never said Saddam was NOT connected to 9/11 until he was asked about it directly, following these polls.

It came from Democrats putting words in his mouth.

Oh, OK.

[Tom In VA]

Tom,

So what you're saying is that those who had an interest in painting Bush as a liar were responsible for the shift in public opinion as we were going into Iraq?

Huh?

I contend that there are parties that craft commentary and use quotes to stimulate and encourage both our perceptions. Why can't you be honest enough to do the same. Especially since "honesty" or lack thereof with Bush seems to be your biggest issue.

Well.

[RadioFan]

I've been consistent in my own take on why we went in and that we should have gone in ... it was for reasons not stated publically by the administration, as I have posted before. I never bought this bullshit notion that Saddam was a direct threat to this country, nor even the region, outside of funding Palestinian suicide bombers and possibly having WMDs -- just like Iran and Syria currently, and at the time, Libya. I've always said that the real reason we went in was to reshape the political landscape of the Middle East, by trying to establish a moderate regime, smack dab in the Middle of the Arab world, while taking out a despot in the process.

Anyone who couldn't see that Bush was planting a seed by constantly mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in months of speeches, leading up to the invasion is an idiot. That doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't have gone in. I just never bought the rationale for it, outside of the possibility that he might have WMDs.

I still believe, as I always have, that we're there to reshape the political landscape of the region. Mvscal is correct in the other thread that we underestimated the Iraqis' willingness to take hold of their country, after the invasion.

That's legitimate criticism, along with the publically stated rationale by the administration of why we went in, currently, especially given the ridiculous notion that somehow any criticism of the war or of the administration amounted to "treason" by a frightenly large number of brain-dead tards two years ago.

Many of whom, I'm sure, are now among the majority who now believe that going into Iraq was "a mistake," according to the latest polls.

For the record, I'm not among those, either.

[RadioFan]

The second thing he did was invade Kuwait and we had been standing on his neck ever since.

What ever gives you the idea that he was no threat to region?

We should have taken him out in 1991.

And as you say, with our foot on his neck since then, it would seem logical that he would be less of a threat to the region than say, Iran or Syria.

But the notion that after 9/11 he's suddenly even more of a threat doesn't do much for your argument that Bush didn't link the two, now doesn't it?



And BTW, by "direct threat," I mean a direct military threat. Not "harboring terrorists." We have a "direct threat" within our own country if that's the definition.

[RadioFan]

9/11 was the wake up call to the type of danger he represented.

No shit?

So I guess Bush did link the two. I could have sworn you were arguing that he didn't.



What part of my posting that going into Iraq was the right thing to do for the wrong publically stated reasons do you not understand?

And you're right, 9/11 was the wake up call, only not to the type of danger a Baathist dictator represented, but to establishing a moderate state in the middle of the Arab world.

I don't think you and I disagree as to why we really went in.

[Tom In VA]

9/11 was the wake up call to the type of danger he represented.

No shit?

So I guess Bush did link the two. I could have sworn you were arguing that he didn't.

Oh Christ, and you're running around calling people "idiot".

Much of this whole thread has been about the misperception (IMHO) that Bush "implied" Saddam was directly RESPONSIBLE and IN COHOOTS with Al Queda as it regards the 9-11 attack.

Of course he was planting a seed all along. A seed that said "We better do something about these threats", then I listed them, or else another and potentially more grave 9-11 would happen.

Christ on a crutch. Would you like a power point slide presentation next time ?

And thanks for your strategic breakdown as to whether or not Saddam was a threat to us and the region. Countless others more qualified than you and I put together have concluded .... he was.

He was a delusional maniac that believed he was called to re-unite the Arab world. Any guesses as to how he planned on doing that ? And with what kinds of weapons ?

[RadioFan]

Much of this whole thread has been about the misperception (IMHO) that Bush "implied" Saddam was directly RESPONSIBLE and IN COHOOTS with Al Queda as it regards the 9-11 attack.

Of course he was planting a seed all along. A seed that said "We better do something about these threats", then I listed them, or else another and potentially more grave 9-11 would happen.

And you still haven't answered my question.

How is it that 3 percent of Americans thought Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 after the attacks, and 45 percent thought he was as we were about to go into Iraq?

Maybe we can agree to disagree on the semantics of Bush implying Saddam's direct responsibily as a justification for war.

Maybe we can agree that a significant number of the American public are alarmingly stupid.

[Felix]

Maybe we can agree that a significant number of the American public are alarmingly stupid.

ding......ding........ding.......

[Tom In VA]

How is it that 3 percent of Americans thought Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 after the attacks, and 45 percent thought he was as we were about to go into Iraq?

Let's see. Do you know for a fact Saddam wasn't involved ?
Even the commission, doesn't. All they concluded is that they did find any evidence of an Iraqi, Al Queda connection. Now I know we all like to jump to conclusions either way to pretend we're not "stupid", but it seems to me the people who are held accountable and responsible for their conclusions hesitate to be declarative on the subject and lean towards precise communication of findings. I.E.

Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

That's purportedly after being able to review reams and reams of transcripts, paperwork, and classified information we haven't seen.

Besides up until the invasion, the commission, etc... etc... every Middle Eastern country was suspect IMHO.

Maybe we can agree that a significant number of the American public are alarmingly stupid.

No I disagree. I think a significant number of the American politicians, media, and celebrity elite think the American public is stupid. I think the media is entitled to sensationalize information, draw incorrect inferences, make implications, and spin information. They're rarely held accountable and when they are bury corrections and obfuscate their "coming correct".

My brothers and sisters in this country ? We might be ill informed, perhaps, but "stupid" ? Nice view of your fellow Americans.

[Felix]

here ya go Tom.......

http://www.bushoniraq.com/index.html

[RadioFan]

How is it that 3 percent of Americans thought Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 after the attacks, and 45 percent thought he was as we were about to go into Iraq?

Let's see. Do you know for a fact Saddam wasn't involved ?

Obviously, I don't. I also don't know for a fact that Ariel Sharon or Vladimir Putin weren't involved, either.

The issue is that the number of Americans who thought Saddam was personally involved went from virtually nothing to virtually half leading up to the war, and the reasons for that change in perception.

Let's see ... so far, we have: The Democrats, the media, unnamed politicians and celebrity elite. Yet the administration -- the very proponents of the war -- had no role whatsoever in changing that perception.

Yeah, that makes sense.

My brothers and sisters in this country ? We might be ill informed, perhaps, but "stupid" ? Nice view of your fellow Americans.

http://tv.yahoo.com/nielsen/

You were saying?

[Tom In VA]

When are you going to learn to read ?

I said.

American politicians. I didn't say "democrats". See you drew an inference and perceived an implication, where there was none.


Tell me, you've never ever witnessed a correction buried within a paper ? Do you read the paper ?

[RadioFan]

American politicians. I didn't say "democrats". See you drew an inference and perceived an implication, where there was none.

The reference was to mvscal's post, not yours.

[Tom In VA]

here ya go Tom.......

http://www.bushoniraq.com/index.html

Thanks.

http://www.bushoniraq.com/bush1.html

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"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. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

The "Explanation" is nothing more than a subjective interpretation.

[Felix]

"QUESTION: Do you believe, because this is continually a subject of debate, that there was a link between al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein before the war? MS. RICE: Absolutely.

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

"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.

[quote-"George Bush"]"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."[/quote]

yeah you're right, how could any intelligent person connect the two.......

[Tom In VA]

yeah you're right, how could any intelligent person connect the two.......

Felix,

Look at your "quotes".

Rice was asked if she "believed" there was a link, she said "Yes".
Cheney said ... "I continue to believe..."

Donald Rumsfeld outlined cold hard facts.

What you're doing is obfuscating the issue, the issue here is the contention that Bush implied a link between Saddam and Al Queda in the 9-11 attack.

Not one of your quotes address that. They address terrorism and Saddam's material support of it as a whole. But if you'd like to believe that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, and that the man responsible for the country in which you live, prosper, and enjoy the freedoms of is lying .... that's your choice. But it's nothing more than a subjective interpretation. I'm not calling you "stupid" or "ignorant" or anything else, it's a just a subjective interpretation.

We see what we want to see. I'm no different. I'd like to think Bush, any president for that matter, is doing what he believes is best for this country and doing his job. You choose otherwise.

[Felix]

What you're doing is obfuscating the issue, the issue here is the contention that Bush implied a link between Saddam and Al Queda in the 9-11 attack.

You're right....Bush never said "Hussein and Al-Queda conspired to bring down the WTC".......

you win.....

[Tom In VA]

What you're doing is obfuscating the issue, the issue here is the contention that Bush implied a link between Saddam and Al Queda in the 9-11 attack.

You're right....Bush never said "Hussein and Al-Queda conspired to bring down the WTC".......

you win.....

I might have fallen asleep before that speech. I'm not saying he never said that, but can you help me out with a link ? I'm having trouble finding it.

[Felix]

I'm having trouble finding it.

Yeah, it's always tough to find things that people never said.........

did I mention that you win?

[Dinsdale]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... CLARKE.TMP

[Tom In VA]

Thanks for the link Dins.

I found one quote that to me, says it all,

If the administration didn't search for such a connection, it would have been negligent," said James Phillips, a senior fellow and Middle East expert at the Heritage Foundation. "Saddam Hussein had a record of supporting terrorist groups, and he had already tried to assassinate a former U.S. president, Bush's father. The administration was correct to look at the ultimate source of this kind of attack and not just the immediate terrorist group involved."

Felix,

Win what ? We're having a discussion, not an argument. We're exchanging ideas and viewpoints. My lot, and I'm sure yours hasn't changed as a result of this thread. Furthermore, people are getting maimed and dead, I don't relish that thought while I enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice. Call it a draw, if anything. This pic could be either of us.



We're eating it, they're paying for it. For my money, whether they were sent there under false pretense or not, doesn't change the fact they're doing it because they took an oath to the Constitution that allows us to engage in these kinds of informative discussions.

[RadioFan]

Win what ? We're having a discussion, not an argument. We're exchanging ideas and viewpoints.

I thought we were solving the world's problems.

That is, after all, what we do in here.

:wink:


Btw, Tom, I can dig what you're sayin' about the troops.

One of my points is that the adminstration could have just come out and said "We're going to invade Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein, and set up what we hope will be a moderate Arab state right in the middle of the Arab World, a hotbed of terrorism."

Of course there's no way in hell they would say that -- not that exact language for sure, nor even something along those lines in diplomatic language -- because it would not be politically feasible. Maybe some here in the U.S. interpreted "another 9/11 with Saddam's men flying the planes" to mean just that. But that notion isn't the same as Saddam being personally responsible for 9/11 itself.

[Tom In VA]

RadioFan,

Indeed. This we know. We live in tenuous times. The Middle East is a powder keg and who knows what will solve their problems and consequently, ours.

I wish Presidents would be more straightforward, but I think sometimes that has to do with strategy in dealing with other countries more than "hiding" stuff from us. I don't know.

Good Talk

[Felix]

Tom, don't make the mistake of thinking that because I'm not a big fan of the Iraqi invasion that I have anything less than the utmost respect for our military........

I've consistently gone out to the airport in an effort to greet and thank as many of our returning military personell as I can for their service to this country......