*Shakes Head* Sigh, Bush what in the hell are you thinking?

[RedFury]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Whats truly surpassing strange about the “70% believe…” thing is that I have seen any number of news reports, even front page, saying just that: 70% believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and it just ain’t so. So faulting media slant gets problematic when the media is reporting that people believe something thats not true.

Has this poll been updated lately? Has the number remained at 70% while the other poll numbers do imitations of David Caruso’s career? **

Indeed it has. The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

People believe what they want to believe. And in this case blaming Saddam – and satisfying the latent bloodthirst for revenge after 9/11 – is less painful than admitting thousands of Iraqis were butchered for no particularly good reason.

---

seal_cleaner, I’ll take you up on that thread as soon as I have some free time to put together a fairly cohesive OP. I do think the topic is worthy of discussion – much to be learned from it.

[RedFury]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Whats truly surpassing strange about the “70% believe…” thing is that I have seen any number of news reports, even front page, saying just that: 70% believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and it just ain’t so. So faulting media slant gets problematic when the media is reporting that people believe something thats not true.

Has this poll been updated lately? Has the number remained at 70% while the other poll numbers do imitations of David Caruso’s career? **

Indeed it has. The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

People believe what they want to believe. And in this case blaming Saddam – and satisfying the latent bloodthirst for revenge after 9/11 – is less painful than admitting thousands of Iraqis were butchered for no particularly good reason.

---

seal_cleaner, I’ll take you up on that thread as soon as I have some free time to put together a fairly cohesive OP. I do think the topic is worthy of discussion – much to be learned from it.

BTW, this is the kind of goodwill the US had in its time of need two short years ago. Amazing how it’s been squandered since.

When Words Fail Us

[RedFury]

On the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, George Bush will publicly mourn the nearly 3,000 men and women we lost on that terrible day. But there are others who have paid an equally high price for that tragedy whose names the president is not likely to include in his speeches. The 288 American soldiers and countless Iraqis who have since died in a pointless, bloody war will not be mentioned, nor will the administration’s own responsibility in their deaths.
For those in the White House who have long supported regime change in Baghdad, the national tragedy was a window of opportunity through which they aggressively, repeatedly, and ruthlessly rammed their plans for a spectacular sequel to the first Gulf War.
The story of the war in Iraq begins on Sept. 11. It is a story of how a small group of men within the Bush administration led a frightened nation down a long, treacherous road from Ground Zero to a bloody, no-exit war on the streets of Baghdad.

Path of lies; 9/11 to Iraq

[Seven]

*Originally posted by RedFury *
**…but that one of its contingencies for application was a ‘Pearl Harbour-like’ event.

Please note that I am not subscribing to any conspiracy theory vis-a-vis the attack;…**

Don’t worry. I have that subscription if you ever need to borrow an issue.