44% say that several 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, damn, Bush only needed to get another 7% after those ing idiots.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050218/nyf057_1.html

[Frodo]

when a government launches disinformation campaigns on its own people (as the Bush administration has done with subtlety, suggesting in its pronouncements that Iraq had something to with 9/11 in the months leading up to the initial invasion without actually saying it outright), what does that say about the nature of the relationship between that government and its people?

[John Dibble]

Disinformation campaigns? I think you're being paranoid - and this is coming from a person in the anti-government party.

Seriously though, I've never heard anyone make this claim, especially not people in the government. I really think it is due to people making stupid assumptions - most people do, because they think their assumptions are right. You can't expect everyone to be completely informed on all issues.

Also, jfern, do consider that many of these people surveyed may have not even voted.

[Democratic Hawk]

When are folk going to get it into their heads that Saddam Hussein was a secular Ba'athist, who ruthlessly suppressed Islamic fundamentalism (and, obviously, its terrorist networks) - and I SUPPORT Bush and Blair over Iraq. Saddam was a threat but I, honestly, don't think there was any connection between him, Al-Qaeda and 9/11

Saddam was more of a threat to the Middle East region than the West. I'd like to think in the long run removing him was for the best

Dave

[Gabu]

Disinformation campaigns? I think you're being paranoid - and this is coming from a person in the anti-government party.

Seriously though, I've never heard anyone make this claim, especially not people in the government. I really think it is due to people making stupid assumptions - most people do, because they think their assumptions are right. You can't expect everyone to be completely informed on all issues.

Also, jfern, do consider that many of these people surveyed may have not even voted.

We need to start an anti-conspiracy club.

I pretty much agree with you.  Objectively speaking, a very large chunk of the population of any country is, bluntly, both stupid and, worse, unable to figure out that they're stupid.

It's why I never really am able to blame politicians for being weasels: they're professionals simply doing what they know will work.  Until the people smarten up (which could be difficult, given that they don't know they're stupid), nothing will change.

[ATFFL]

Disinformation campaigns? I think you're being paranoid - and this is coming from a person in the anti-government party.

Seriously though, I've never heard anyone make this claim, especially not people in the government. I really think it is due to people making stupid assumptions - most people do, because they think their assumptions are right. You can't expect everyone to be completely informed on all issues.

Also, jfern, do consider that many of these people surveyed may have not even voted.

We need to start an anti-conspiracy club.

All these conspiracy theories?  It's a conspiracy I tell ya!

[The Dowager Mod]

[YRABNNRM]

I think this just has to do with the public having no idea what the hell they're talking about than some secret Bush Administration agenda.

[Alcon]

I agree that this is not something the Bush administration is perpetuating, although I do not think they are going to go out of their way to inform this 44% about this fact.

[12th Doctor]

Whoever asked the poll question (Harris?) had an obvious agenda in mind.  That being to prove that the American people were "dupped".  That being said, there result is highly questionable.

[Alcon]

Whoever asked the poll question (Harris?) had an obvious agenda in mind.  That being to prove that the American people were "dupped".  That being said, there result is highly questionable.

Perhaps, but I have noticed pollsters often throw in two questions that mean the same thing (the West Wing episode with the 7% of peopel who think we give too much foreign aid but don't want to cut it come to mind) but are phrased differently to see how many people have no idea what they are talking about. Similarly, on polls like these, I notice that they insert "checkup" questions like these.

I do not think this suggests Americans were duped; rather, that they are ignorant. This only reflects a bias if you think that this is a result of the actions of the Bush administration, as opposed to what many would assume - that this is just a result of assumptions made that the administration has no reason to refute, and would be uncomfortable ground for them to tread on.

[WalterMitty]

most americans think all hispanics are meixcan too!

[A18]

Half of all Americans do not know how many days it takes for the earth to orbit the sun.

If you think this is a big deal, you're a ing idiot.

[The Duke]

When are folk going to get it into their heads that Saddam Hussein was a secular Ba'athist, who ruthlessly suppressed Islamic fundamentalism (and, obviously, its terrorist networks) - and I SUPPORT Bush and Blair over Iraq. Saddam was a threat but I, honestly, don't think there was any connection between him, Al-Qaeda and 9/11

Saddam was more of a threat to the Middle East region than the West. I'd like to think in the long run removing him was for the best

Dave

Uh, what?  Is that why he put Islamist slogans on the Iraqi flag, broadcast wahhabist clerics on his state TV, set up training camps throughout his country for Islamic radicals, harbored several Islamic radical leaders within Bagdhad, and sent vast sums of money to Islamic radical groups (especially Hamas)?  He did not ruthlessly suppress Islamic radicalism, he cloaked himself in it to try and win supporters.

[Gabu]

Disinformation campaigns? I think you're being paranoid - and this is coming from a person in the anti-government party.

Seriously though, I've never heard anyone make this claim, especially not people in the government. I really think it is due to people making stupid assumptions - most people do, because they think their assumptions are right. You can't expect everyone to be completely informed on all issues.

Also, jfern, do consider that many of these people surveyed may have not even voted.

We need to start an anti-conspiracy club.

All these conspiracy theories?  It's a conspiracy I tell ya!

Yes, those evil liberals have started a counter conspiracy against the conspirators and are conspiring to stop the original conspiracy through another conspiracy and THEY'RE ALL OUT TO GET US!!!!!!!!

Have a complimentary tinfoil beanie.

[??????????]

When are folk going to get it into their heads that Saddam Hussein was a secular Ba'athist, who ruthlessly suppressed Islamic fundamentalism (and, obviously, its terrorist networks) - and I SUPPORT Bush and Blair over Iraq. Saddam was a threat but I, honestly, don't think there was any connection between him, Al-Qaeda and 9/11

Saddam was more of a threat to the Middle East region than the West. I'd like to think in the long run removing him was for the best

Dave

It doesnt matter if Saddam was a secularist or not. The greater threat to him was the US. If he had to suck it up and form a loose alliance with terrorists he would almost certainly do that. Remember when Sadam paid the families of suicide bombers? Salman Pak? In world war 2 we didn't always agree with the soviets BUT we did ally with them because we had a common enemy, Germany.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

[patrick1]

There is no such thing as an Iraq-it is a 20th century construct and that is a big reason why we are in all of this mess to begin with.  It is the post colonial after effects of just carving up territories randomly into countries.  It is a tough distinction to make- Does a Sausi Arab look like an Iraqi etc.  You cant  really tell the difference between a Walloon and a Northern Frenchman can you.  Now the view that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was behind the attack is wrong

[dazzleman]

It's interesting how the majority of the American public is so often wrong on details, but somehow manages to be correct on the big picture.

True, the 9/11 hijackers were not Iraqi.  However, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a sponsor of international terrorism.

Islamic fundamentalism is not the cause of terrorism.  It is a symptom of the problem that leads to terrorism - the dead end hopelessness prevalent in the middle east that is caused largely by regimes like the Hussein regime.

So while snotty intellectual elitists pick away at the American people's lack of mastery over details, they as always miss the big picture, and quibble over details that aren't so important in the grand scheme of things.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's interesting how the majority of the American public is so often wrong on details, but somehow manages to be correct on the big picture.

True, the 9/11 hijackers were not Iraqi.  However, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a sponsor of international terrorism.

Islamic fundamentalism is not the cause of terrorism.  It is a symptom of the problem that leads to terrorism - the dead end hopelessness prevalent in the middle east that is caused largely by regimes like the Hussein regime.

So while snotty intellectual elitists pick away at the American people's lack of mastery over details, they as always miss the big picture, and quibble over details that aren't so important in the grand scheme of things.

Can someone explain why everyone thought this moron was so intelligent?

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, damn, Bush only needed to get another 7% after those ing idiots.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050218/nyf057_1.html

Supportive of the war in Iraq as I am this crap is enough to make me wanna weep

Dave

[MODU]

bump

Why are you bumping all these old threads without adding to the discussion?

[Wakie]

When are folk going to get it into their heads that Saddam Hussein was a secular Ba'athist, who ruthlessly suppressed Islamic fundamentalism (and, obviously, its terrorist networks) - and I SUPPORT Bush and Blair over Iraq. Saddam was a threat but I, honestly, don't think there was any connection between him, Al-Qaeda and 9/11

Saddam was more of a threat to the Middle East region than the West. I'd like to think in the long run removing him was for the best

Dave

It doesnt matter if Saddam was a secularist or not. The greater threat to him was the US. If he had to suck it up and form a loose alliance with terrorists he would almost certainly do that. Remember when Sadam paid the families of suicide bombers? Salman Pak? In world war 2 we didn't always agree with the soviets BUT we did ally with them because we had a common enemy, Germany.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

So .... who is our friend in Iran vs Iraq?

[bullmoose88]

Can someone explain why everyone thought this moron was so intelligent?

Someone else can make this suggestion, but frankly, you're one of the last people on the boards who has any standing to accuse anyone else of being a moron.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's a way to ignore the point that his post was a stupid load of bullsh!t.

[bullmoose88]

That's a way to ignore the point that his post was a stupid load of bullsh!t.

Oh no, I decided not to make an evaluation on the content of his post.  I decided to chastize you for calling someone else stupid.