QandO
Questions and Observations| « Buried | Main | Taking back the vote » |
|
June 22, 2004 Misled? The Belgravia Dispatch--in a fairly comprehensive look at the poll data regarding Bush's support in the war on terror--makes this interesting point... ...most Americans (over 60%) believe or suspect Saddam had cooperated with al-Q historically--but a full 48% neverthless believe they were misled on said alleged links.As with the rest of the data, it appears the voters have a hard time with consistency. My take? Well, "what people think" can be interesting, but it's only got an incidental relationship to the facts. And what about the actual facts, anyway? Well, as Djerejian points out, the people who believe the administration misled the public into believing Iraq provided direct support to Al Qaeda need to explain this January 2004 poll result... Before the war, do you think Iraq did or did not provide direct support to the Al Qaeda terrorist group?Even more telling, I think, is this September 13 2001 poll, taken well before the administration said word one about the Iraq problem... "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist attacks..."This appears to be a deal-killer for those who would claim the Bush administration misled the public the belief that Iraq and Al Qaeda were cooperating in the 9/11 attacks. |
Jon,
I still believe that no matter what people incorrectly believed during the days following 9/11, the administration never dissauded those views. That kind of reinforcement continues to this day. Cheney repeated this with the "we never said it, but solid proof is yet to be found that a connection never existed" line of debate. We can talk all night about connection vs. responsibility, but I'm speaking directly about the poll numbers you cite from 9/13/2001. I know, as usual, we can agree to disagree about this topic.
Posted by: sean at June 22, 2004 09:03 AM
"This appears to be a deal-killer for those who would claim the Bush administration misled the public the belief that Iraq and Al Qaeda were cooperating in the 9/11 attacks."
There are no deal-killers for the Bush-lied believers. Everything that was said, done, and believed during the Clinton adminstration has been conveniently forgotten.
And now Sean raises the bar by imposing a duty on the Bush adminstration to dissuade the American public of any erroneous beliefs.
Posted by: pilsener at June 22, 2004 09:38 AM
Pilsener,
I speak for myself, not the rest of the "Bush-lied believers." Expecting leadership from our leaders is "raising the bar?" Come on now.
If someone held the belief that humans came from Mars, and authorities knew that to be false, wouldn't you expect the truth to be told far and wide? That's all I expect.
Whether it's the Iraq and 9/11 responsibility link or WMDs.
Posted by: sean at June 22, 2004 10:59 AM
I've been looking at this issue for a while and posted on it on my blog last week:
Saddam and the al Qaeda Two-step
Posted by: Chuck at June 22, 2004 11:13 AM
Oh come ON, Sean, it is NOT the administration's responsibility to disabuse everyone of all their crazy notions, even if we limit that to all their crazy political notions. Especially nowadays, when anyone with a library card can walk right in and do a Google search.
Posted by: Wacky Hermit at June 22, 2004 11:39 AM
You're giving people the benefit of doubt. The fact of the matter is that all of us participating in the blogophere are a little bit more informed than the Average Joe. I would agree with what you are saying if it was just a fringe amount of people with incorrect notions. But when the number is well over 50%, then that says something.
Posted by: sean at June 22, 2004 12:26 PM
Nice site Hermit, by the way.
Posted by: sean at June 22, 2004 12:28 PM
I'd concede, Sean, that the administration generally didn't address--pro or con--any potential connections between Iraq and 9/11.
However, the war critics did. Vociferously.
We might be able to criticise the Bush administration for not making the case against the war--even as accurate a case as the lack of connection--but I can't say I'm particularly bothered by the fact that the Bush administration didn't go on the offense against their supporters.
You'll notice the Kerry campaign isn't trying to lift consumer spirits by talking up the economy, lately, despite strong job growth.
It's just not something I really expect, that a political office will focus on confirming their critics.
Posted by: Jon Henke at June 22, 2004 01:30 PM
I'm having this discussion with some other peaceniks. You can't make the case the Bushies connected Saddam with 9-11. It doesn't exist and the attempts rely on some very selective editing.
But the most important thing to note is that no media sources were peddling it either. There was no doubt at the time that AQ and AQ alone was responsible for 9-11.
Posted by: spongeworthy at June 22, 2004 03:50 PM