Statements about the Iraq war: Misperceptions or misleading?

[Tigerman]

[quote=“spook”]Just to keep the record straight:

Preemptive war is being launched against Iraq today in order [color=blue]“to take the necessary actions against . . . those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”[/color]

President Bush in written notification to Congress on March 18,2003 on why he was authorizing invasion of Iraq on that date.

(Sorry, Tigerman, just doing my job. Nothing personal.)[/quote]

spook, tsk tsk…

Let’s keep the record REALLy straight, shall we:

Here is the entire text of the letter from Bush to Congress:

[quote=“President Bush”]Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, [color=blue]I determine that:[/color]

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) [color=blue]acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing 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[/color].

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[/quote]

[color=red]You have deleted important text from the letter. The letter states that acting against Iraq is consistent with the efforts against terrorists and nations that assist or support terrorists, including those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. However, Bush did NOT state that Iraq or Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda in connection with the 9/11 attacks.[/color]

Sorry, spook. Nuthin’ personal. I know you’re just trying to keep me on my toes…

[twocs]

@Tigerman

Where do so many of you (not you, spook, but so many others) get the idea that Bush claimed or asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks?

Not everyone is as able as you to disregard what is visible “between the lines”.

Reading between the lines of Bush’s remarks on Oct 7, 2002, it seemed like he was saying that Iraq and al Qaida are connected. In his conclusion, Bush said it like this:“The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda’s plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.”

It was easy for us to think that he’s talking about the same thing when he switched back and forth. Even worse, if you change the place of the punctuation he said “We only had hints of al Quaida’s plans and designs today in Iraq… Saddam’s actions have put us on notice.” It seemed like his urgent call to war was based on al Quaida’s 9/11 attack.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll from only 2 weeks before this speech showed that of Americans, a majority, 59%, opposed an invasion if the UN did not approve. Americans at the time really supported a UN war on Iraq.

If you want to oust a sitting president, you’ll have to work hard. Thus, to show Bush has done an unpardonably bad job, you could show that the US went into Iraq solely because of bad intelligence, that Iraq was not behind the 9/11 attacks as many people actually thought, and that the US could and should have waited to enjoy UN presence in the Iraq invasion.

[Tigerman]

@Tigerman

Where do so many of you (not you, spook, but so many others) get the idea that Bush claimed or asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks?

@twocs

Not everyone is as able as you to disregard what is visible “between the lines”.

Well, you can keep looking for hidden meanings by “reading between the lines.” I’ll stick to looking at what was actually stated.

Meanwhile, have a look at The Subject About Which Kerry Dare Not Ever Speak. It explains further why Kerry is in his own alternative universe if he thinks he can get our “allies” and the UN to assist in Iraq.

[Tigerman]

@Tigerman

. . . Bush has never stated that Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda in connection with the planning or carrying-out of the 911 attacks. Where do so many of you get the idea that Bush claimed or asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks?

[quote=“spook”] Preemptive war is being launched against Iraq today in order[color=blue] “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.”[/color]

President Bush in written notification to Congress on March 18, 2003 on why he was authorizing invasion of Iraq on that date[/quote]

spook, tsk tsk…

Let’s keep the record REALLy straight, shall we:

Here is the entire text of the letter from Bush to Congress:

[quote=“President Bush”]Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, [color=blue]I determine that:[/color]

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) [color=blue]acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing 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[/color].

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[/quote]

[color=red]You have deleted important text from the letter. The letter states that acting against Iraq is consistent with the efforts against terrorists and nations that assist or support terrorists, including those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. However, Bush did NOT state that Iraq or Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda in connection with the 9/11 attacks.[/color]

[twocs]

@Tigerman

[quote=“Tigerman”]Where do so many of you (not you, spook, but so many others) get the idea that Bush claimed or asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks?

@twocs

Not everyone is as able as you to disregard what is visible “between the lines”.

Well, you can keep looking for hidden meanings by “reading between the lines.” I’ll stick to looking at what was actually stated.

Meanwhile, have a look at The Subject About Which Kerry Dare Not Ever Speak. It explains further why Kerry is in his own alternative universe if he thinks he can get our “allies” and the UN to assist in Iraq.[/quote]

More and more Republicans are think that Saddam was part of the 911 attacks.

The same USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%.

Maybe it was what Bush meant, or maybe it’s just the actual statements like you said. You know by this poll that Republicans are saying Saddam was acually involved with the attacks.

[Tigerman]

@twocs

More and more Republicans are think that Saddam was part of the 911 attacks.

The possibility has not been disproved. But, so what? I cannot say exactly why anyone believes what they do… but I can look at the record of what was actually stated. Bush never stated that Saddam cooperated or otherwise assisted al Qaeda with the 9/11 attacks. If some wish to believe that Saddam was in some way complicit with al Qaeda… well, they can believe whatever they like…

Just as I cannot understand how you folks who criticize Bush for suggesting that Saddam was responsible in some way for the 9/11 attacks can continue to do so even after the record proves that he never made such a claim.

[quote=“twocs”]The same USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%.

Maybe it was what Bush meant, or maybe it’s just the actual statements like you said. You know by this poll that Republicans are saying Saddam was acually involved with the attacks.[/quote]

Like I say above… people are free to believe what they want… but you cannot credibly accuse Bush with stating that Saddam was in any way responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

[twocs]

@Tigerman

people are free to believe what they want… but you cannot credibly accuse Bush with stating that Saddam was in any way responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Bush’s second in command says it, and I believe Bush would never deny it.

[politbureau]

". . . nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . "

There are only two nations that Bush and his vice-president have ever said, implied or insinuated had anything to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11 and one of them had already been successfully disposed of as of March 18, 2003.

No intellectually honest person could read that statement and not know that there weren’t some supporting votes cast in Congress – the only organization on earth with the power to halt the invasion of Iraq – on the assumption that “nations, organizations, or persons” referred to Iraq, Baathism, or Saddam Hussein.

[Tigerman]

[quote=“spook”]". . . nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . "

There are only two nations that Bush and his vice-president have ever said, implied or insinuated had anything to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11 and one of them had already been successfully disposed of as of March 18, 2003.

No intellectually honest person could read that statement and not know that there weren’t some supporting votes cast in Congress – the only organization on earth with the power to halt the invasion of Iraq – on the assumption that “nations, organizations, or persons” referred to Iraq, Baathism, or Saddam Hussein.[/quote]

No way, spook. You are wrong on this.

Here is President Bush’s letter again. Read closely:

[quote=“President Bush”]Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, [color=blue]I determine that:[/color]

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) [color=blue]acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing 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[/color].

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[/quote]

It is clear that Bush is stating that his decision to use force to oust Saddam is consistent with the efforts taken against ". . .those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . "

[color=red]“Consistent with” means “compatible with”, and “compatible” means “able to co-exist or to be used in combination”.[/color] It is thus clear that Bush is making a special case for Iraq, and by his language he has differentiated Iraq from ". . . those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . " This much is clear. Bush stated that the action sought to be taken against Iraq was consistent with, i.e., compatible with, i.e., able to co-exist with or to be taken in combination with the action taken against those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . The use of the word those further distinguishes Iraq from those other nations. Do you see now?

Moreover, if any members of the House or Senate did not understand what was being stated by Bush, then they do not deserve to be in such office. Bush spoke repeatedly regarding his goals for the middle east and he indicated clearly in many of his speeches his plans and his notion as to how Iraq fit in to the over all war on terror.

I am not the sharpest tack in the box, so to speak. Yet, this has always been clear even to me… and the record supports my interpretation. There simply is no excuse for elected officials to have not understood Bush’s message.

And, if some of us citizens didn’t understand, or still don’t understand, or refuse to understand… well, whose fault is that?

[politbureau]

Tigerman,

Do you believe then that Iraq, Baathism, or Saddam Hussein were completely innocent of planning, authorizing, committing or aiding the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?

[Tigerman]

[quote=“spook”]Tigerman,

Do you believe then that Iraq, Baathism, or Saddam Hussein were completely innocent of planning, authorizing, committing or aiding the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?[/quote]

I do not know, and there is no evidence that suggests that Iraq, Baathism, or Saddam Hussein assisted in or otherwise cooperated in the planning, authorizing, committing or aiding the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Do I believe that such assistance or cooperation might have existed? Yes, I do. However, that is speculation and as such it does not form part of nor support my argument. Thus, I have never used it to argue what “might have been”…

Unlike twocs, I will not attempt to “read between the lines”.

[fred_smith]

Tigerman:

Fantastic job of once again beating this mythical Bush administration statement that Iraq was directly responsible for 911 down. He targeted all terrorists and all terrorist supporters after 911. It does not need to be specific to 911. Why is this so hard for people to understand? I am assuming that those who do post genuinely are confused though I think sometime’s spook’s agenda gets the better of his willingness to look at facts. haha

[politbureau]

Straight, honest answer, I must say. My compliments.

How about you, Fred. Are you feeling lucky today?:

Are you among the forty percent of the U.S. citizenry who are convinced Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks?

No blathering now and try to keep your barking dogmatism on a leash for once.

[Tigerman]

@Tigerman

people are free to believe what they want… but you cannot credibly accuse Bush with stating that Saddam was in any way responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

@twocs

Bush’s second in command says it

Link please, so we can look at the context of such statement.

@twocs

…and I believe Bush would never deny it.

Has Bush made such an assertion? NO.

What you believe means nothing. Lots of folks believe in Santa Clause. So what?

[Rascal]

@Fred

What then was Zarkawi doing in Iraq? Do you think he could just happen to be there along with Abu Sidal? Who just miraculously offed himself before the invasion? Right. So Zarkawi is or is not al Qaeda. That is really what the question boils down to. Does he have connections with Osama bin Laden? We apparently do not know anymore, though would you argue that his objectives are any different? A horse is a horse is a horse of course…

Whatever the objectives were, there is no proof that Iraq harbored or directly assisted him:

WASHINGTON - A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House’s claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there’s no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Since the Sept. 11 commission’s judgment in June, Bush and Cheney have repeatedly said that al-Zarqawi was an associate of bin Laden and received safe haven from Saddam. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld backed away Monday from such claims, apparently as a result of the new CIA assessment.

As to Tigerman, from his own quote:

To date, we have seen no evidence that these or other contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship…

@Tigerman

There is abundant evidence of connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Husein’s regime.

But none that proves ‘a collaborative operational relationship’, including sales of non-existant WMD.

Where do so many of you get the idea that Bush claimed or asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks?

The question you should ask: Where did 51% of Americans get that idea? (Q.17)

I guess as long as you mention 911 and Iraq often enough in one speech and in sentences that follow each other, as Bush & Co. did, people do tend to get that impression (even they didn’t say it directly).

That’d be interesting. I wonder which media outlets would be to blame for that misperception?

Who says the media is responsible for that misperception? Why does it not occur to you that Bush & Co. could be responsible for that?

Somewhat related: For a study of influence by the US media and who is leading the pack (no surprise) see the following: Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War

My favorite quote:

[quote]The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans’ political positions.
Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions.
However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions.[/quote]

[Tigerman]

@Fred

What then was Zarkawi doing in Iraq? Do you think he could just happen to be there along with Abu Sidal? Who just miraculously offed himself before the invasion? Right. So Zarkawi is or is not al Qaeda. That is really what the question boils down to. Does he have connections with Osama bin Laden? We apparently do not know anymore, though would you argue that his objectives are any different? A horse is a horse is a horse of course…

@Rascal

Whatever the objectives were, there is no proof that Iraq harbored or directly assisted him:

So, what is your point?

[quote=“Rascal”]

WASHINGTON - A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House’s claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there’s no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Since the Sept. 11 commission’s judgment in June, Bush and Cheney have repeatedly said that al-Zarqawi was an associate of bin Laden and received safe haven from Saddam. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld backed away Monday from such claims, apparently as a result of the new CIA assessment.[/quote]

So, what is your point?

[quote=“Rascal”]As to Tigerman, from his own quote:

To date, we have seen no evidence that these or other contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship…[/quote]

So, what is your point? Bush decided to act against Iraq BEFORE such collaborative operational relationship could develop. Is it really so difficult to understand this idea?

@Tigerman

There is abundant evidence of connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Husein’s regime.

@Rascal

But none that proves ‘a collaborative operational relationship’, including sales of non-existant WMD.

No shit? So, what exactly is your point? Again, Bush wanted to PRE-EMPT the possibility of any such collaborative operational relationship. That’s what he did. What is your point?

Where do so many of you get the idea that Bush claimed or asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks?

@Rascal

The question you should ask: Where did 51% of Americans get that idea? (Q.17)

No. The question you should answer is the one I asked first. I don’t give a shit why some people think Saddam might have been connected to the 911 attacks. I say there is no evidence of such a connection, but, so what? They can think what they want.

What I want to know is why, despite documentation proving otherwise, people like Rascal refuse to stop insisting that Bush claimed a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks.

Will Rascal address that question? Not likely.

@Rascal

I guess as long as you mention 911 and Iraq often enough in one speech and in sentences that follow each other, as Bush & Co. did, people do tend to get that impression (even they didn’t say it directly).

So what’s your excuse? Can you read? Can you understand spoken English? If yes, then please cite a statement by Bush indicating that Saddam was connected to the 911 attacks. If you cannot cite such a statement, then you should admit that such accusations are false and those who continue to repeat them knowing that they are false are obviously too biased to be credible.

That’d be interesting. I wonder which media outlets would be to blame for that misperception?

@Rascal

Who says the media is responsible for that misperception? Why does it not occur to you that Bush & Co. could be responsible for that?

Duh. Many times when the poll showing US citizens who believe that Saddam was responsible for 911 it was also shown that Fox News was responsible for creating such a perception.

And, as I stated above, if you cannot cite a single statement by Bush that asserts that Saddam is responsible for the 911 attacks, then it cannot logically be claimed that Bush is responsible for such (mis)perception… in such case… gee, I wonder if it might be the media that created such a mis(perception)…

[quote=“Rascal”]Somewhat related: For a study of influence by the US media and who is leading the pack (no surprise) see the following: Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War

My favorite quote:

[quote]The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans

[fred_smith]

Rascal:

I take your points really I do, but you are overfocusing on the minutae as opposed to Bush’s message after 911. Those who support terrorism are going to pay. Iraq supported terrorism. Saddam supported terrorism. End of story. We were through dealing with him.

Whether Zarkawi is al Qaeda or just another terrorist with the exact same aims is beside the point. He was a terrorist. He was in Iraq. Is he linked to al Qaeda? Well apparently there seems to be some confusion about that today. So what? Are his goals the same as al Qaeda’s? Well they certainly seem to be.

So while you endlessly and with perverse enjoyment debate the fine print, try to understand that most of us do not care. Iraq was a problem. It supported terrorism. No matter how you slice it, Saddam was up to no good. You can argue all you want about lack of wmds, whether or not Zarkawi was this, that or the other kind of terrorist but we know Saddam was trouble. We know al Qaeda is trouble and now they know that we in the US will be coming after them. How’s that?

[politbureau]

I still want to know if Fred Smith is part of the 50% of the American public which believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack.

[fred_smith]

Spook:

Stop trying to be cute. I have always said there is no proof that Saddam or Iraq were directly involved in 911 and I do not recall Bush ever saying they were. What I do recall Bush saying is it is time time clean up the neighborhood. That meant Saddam and all his little tricks and such were going. I support that. I would have supported that even if I did not believe that he was trying to get wmds and we all deep down really know that he was. I mean it is great that nothing can be proved on this so you can all squeal but which country’s intelligence agency did not believe that he was. Do you really think that we were all wrong or is it more likely that Saddam has this over in Syria. What do you really think?

So I support Bush. The man has never lied to me. The media has certainly made Rascalian efforts to split hairs to try to convince everyone that he made this or that claim. No one believes the media and I think that Bush will be re-elected. Ah the tragedy and injustice of it all. Especially when 90% of the media deep down believes that they know best for us. It almost sounds communist doesn’t it? er but that would mean? Oh that 90% of journalists are yup. I would say out to make the world a better, more equal place and the methods that they will choose to do so will fit in with their political beliefs.

[Rascal]

So, what is your point? Bush decided to act against Iraq BEFORE such collaborative operational relationship could develop. Is it really so difficult to understand this idea?

My point is that you have been stretching contacts into cooperation into selling WMD that seem not to exist, that are not under development nor under production (and possibly never would have gotten to that stage given the sanctions, inspections and plans for a watchdog), yet there was not indication that they would actually enter into a ‘collaborative operational relationship’, thus no need to pre-empt such, in particular not by means of a war.

No shit? So, what exactly is your point? Again, Bush wanted to PRE-EMPT the possibility of any such collaborative operational relationship. That’s what he did. What is your point?

Such possibility was unlikely, given the fact that Saddam and Osama were enemies and that there is no evidence that such a relationship was about to develop. You are grasping a straw here to justify a war that was started primarily on tons of WMD that the US cannot find now.

[quote]What I want to know is why, despite documentation proving otherwise, people like Rascal refuse to stop insisting that Bush claimed a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks.

Will Rascal address that question? Not likely[/quote]
Sure I will because it’s an excellent opportunity to accuse you of misinterpretation and putting words into my mouth again: please quote where I made a statement that said Bush claimed (or asserted) such a connection. Fact is I only said he implied it, intentionally or not intentionally - which then could lead to the misperception we were talking about.

Now will Tigerman answer the question and provide such a quote (i.e. a clear statement from myself)? Not likely.

So what’s your excuse? Can you read? Can you understand spoken English? If yes, then please cite a statement by Bush indicating that Saddam was connected to the 911 attacks. If you cannot cite such a statement, then you should admit that such accusations are false and those who continue to repeat them knowing that they are false are obviously too biased to be credible.

Nice to see the “new” Tigerman is as agressive as before, still the master of misintepreting and looking at things out of context:
I did not say that Bush made such a definite claim, I clearly speculated why people might have gotten that (mis)perception (from the speeches by himself and his administration).

How in the world can you cite this study and then, above, suggest that Bush is responsible for creating the (mis)perception?

The study does not provide any findings on what the misperception was based on. Did they distort Bush’s message? Or did they just repeat it (accurately) often enough and thus led people into the wrong believes?

While the media seems to be responsible in parts I would not jump into conclusions and put the entire blame on them, parts should go to Bush & Co. who’s speeches read something like " … Iraq … 911 … Al Qaeda … terrorists … Iraq … 911 … Al Qaeda … terrorists … Iraq … 911 … Al Qaeda … terrorists …".
So blame the media for “distributing” the speeches and repeating the “misperceivable” (sp?) message, but the source is still Bush & Co.
In fact I personally do not recall any media stating that Bush made such claims as definite statement but it’s of course possible, just never came across it myself.

But if you think only the media is responsible then there you have the answer to your question which media is/are responsible.

I wonder though what you think about the finding that supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions? Wouldn’t that indicate that they are actually supporting Bush and the war (which the study was based on) for all the wrong reasons?

I state the following here so that you finally understand my view on the matter (based on my current knowledge): Bush didn’t make such claims directly. But based on his speeches I am not surprised that others got that misperception.