Why do people still actually believe Saddam Hussein was working with Al-qaeda?

Question

The bipartisan 9-11 Commission appointed by Bush himself found no evidence for a link between Iraq and Al-qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

Now the Senate finds that Saddam saw Al-qaeda as a threat and was opposed to working with them even in his own country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/

Yet 43% of Americans in a recent CNN poll still believe Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the September 11th attacks.

This isn't something you can argue with, it isn't an opinion. It is a fact. There is no conclusive evidence linking Saddam Hussein to working with Al-qaeda. This is the conclusion of every government investigation. But people still don't accept it. Even after 3 years of no stockpiles of bio-chemical weapons being found, people still think we found them.

Are Americans mindwashed or just flat out uninformed?

For 'Speakeasy':

"Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush."

This is the last sentence in your first link. Gee, I wonder if someone working for the White House would write a news 'story' (under the Op/Ed section) making the same claims his boss is making?

"Ruddy, who serves as editor-in-chief, bills NewsMax.com as "the leading online news site with a conservative perspective.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax

"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative political magazine published 48 times per year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

So yeah you can think these are impartial sources, but both 'news' agencies were founded on the notion of marking to neoconservatives.

"Looking at your Additional Details.. does that mean only press outlets with an anti-Bush agenda are reliable?"

Not at all. I don't think MSNBC or CNN have an anti-Bush agenda. Fox reported the same thing. Why? It is a fact. That IS what the 9/11 commission found.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122821,00.html

As a famous man once said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

There might very well have been a relationship between Iraq and Al-qaeda, but if there was we have no conclusive proof of it.

For anyone wondering about the Amazon link's book, the author works for the Weekly Standard.

"The book and his series of articles are largely based on a memo from Douglas J. Feith to the U.S. Congress on 27 October 2003 that was based on leaked intelligence from the Pentagon, which it has since called "inaccurate," noting that the information leaked "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Hayes

"Republican President George W Bush used Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism as the main case to the United Nations for the US-led war against Iraq."

I think this quote from the AFP article sums up my reply to whatever 'point' its poster was attempting to make. It was Bush that started this war. It was his choice, nobody else's. He will be judged by his creator and by history for that choice.

We didn't 'have' to goto war and the idea we did is idiotic. Bush chose to goto war and people are still dying because of it. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Whether you agree with it or not, George W. Bush chose to start this war.

"nobody except demos said saddam was part of 9/11."

Yeah the sad thing is most of the people that believe it are Republican

"its a fact that they were used even up to the months before we went in"

Evidence where?

"its a photoproven fact that syria has some of the wmd that Saddam did have 2 yrs before"

This photo is where?

"Fact is, the fact that saddam moved it before and continued to fight inspections, makes the fact that none have yet to be found, irrelevant."

Yeah it's totally irrelevant that thousands of people have died because Bush and crew were totally wrong about WMD. Completely irrelevant. What was I thinking?

"In either case the end result is nuclear."

So we would have been nuked by Saddam's invisible nuclear bomb had we not gone to war?

"being against Iraq war or Afgan war is evil, and those who dont support should join alqaeda or islam. "

I'll let this speak for itself. By the way, you can't spell 'Afghan'.

Answer 1

The mentality behind branding Saddam Hussein is the age-old one of 'My country, Right or Wrong." However, as more and more facts come out about the real situation in Iraq the percentage of Americans beliving the complicity of Saddam with Osama will go down. In the initial stages of Vietnam war also there was almost blind backing to America by the citizens but as matters developed it dwindled rapidly.And do you know,Osama Bin Laden's name does not appear in the list of accused for the atrocity of 9/11. It is to the eternal glory of America where even on such tender issues there are people here who are not afrais of speaking out what they feel is right or wrong. This essentially democratic spirit that has helped and will help America from the edge of the precipice.

Answer 2

AFP - Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he travelled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalisation.

The US justified going to war against Iraq last year citing the threat posed by Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction.

Republican President George W Bush used Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism as the main case to the United Nations for the US-led war against Iraq.

Answer 3

to tell you the actuality no i did no longer. i assumed this became right into a humorous tale. Then I pressed on the link you provided. regrettably you have been telling the actuality. shows how gullible i'm. I basically figured they had given up in this an prolonged time in the past. Now in hindsight, i'm reminded what mendacity scum Bush/Cheney are. they are of direction preaching to the converted. purely human beings in finished denial will proceed to have faith the Al-Qaida and Saddam connection. those anybody is mindless sheep. they are lots greater gullible than i'm.

Answer 4

It is Republican propaganda. and why? it works.
That is why they spent 40 million to change peoples minds and say the democrats did it. They know they are losing the election so had to come up with something fast.
Everyone said they would be sued. Not if the said it was fiction.
Which they did and everyone who watches will believe it is true.
Tell a lie enough times and everyone believes it is true.
ABC is having a special sunday night without commercial interruption who is paying for it? Isn't it funny a stanch Republican shelled out 40 million to produce it and it is unbiased.
But it does prove Clinton did it. How many years into his rein is he going to blame clinton for everything he has done wrong.

Answer 5

Because bush supporters are "special"

YOU ARE A SPECIAL PEOPLE CONS

You supported bush, but in time, you will come to
realize how he targeted you for deception.

You were specially picked because of the attributes
you possess: fear, ignorance, arrogance, belligerence,
bigotry, and low self-esteem. Bush's political
strategists calculated that the people most easily
misled and controlled are the ones who fit your
profile, so they crafted their propaganda just for
you.

He got your support by making you feel better about
your personal flaws. He told you to wave the flag
because your bigotry is nothing be ashamed of, and to
thump the bible because your ignorance is a virtue.
You should cherish your hatefulness and
small-mindedness as they are family values. You are
not society's rejects, but rather, you are higher on
the ladder than certain other people. Right-wing radio
points them out so that you know who to hate to feel
better about yourself.

He feeds you crap about "imminent threat",
"patriotism", "spreading freedom", and "flowers and
candy". He's only tossing you a bone because he knows
he's going to be asking you for a hefty sacrifice
soon. He repeats meaningless, mind-numbing platitudes
like "Freedom is not free!" and "We're fighting them
there so we don't have to fight them here!" You fell
for it.

By now, it should be apparent that the invasion of
Iraq was a shameless oil grab. We're there because the
rich, powerful, and greedy of this country, people who
you have nothing to do with, want to control that part
of the world's oil resources for decades to come, and
they're using your tax dollars and your children's
blood to do it. Over a hundred thousand people,
American and Iraqi, are dead because of it, and the
depleted uranium left behind will ensure that tens of
thousands more die afterwards. You call that
liberation? Not even that many people died when Saddam
Hussein tried to grab Kuwait's oil fields years ago.

Yes, you are a special people, cons. You do not
possess patriotism, a love of America, or any of those
high-minded ideals as you would like to believe. You
possess the qualities that allowed bush to hijack your
free will to do his bidding. You were used, and he did
it by playing to the personal shortcomings that most
people try to hide. Like Samuel L. Jackson's character
at the end of the movie Unbreakable, you become aware,
only after the fact, of the disgraceful role that you
were destined to play. You will come to realize that
you are history's bad guy. Like the McCarthyites or
the brownshirts, you will serve both as a symbol of
shame and a warning to future generations. You truly
are a special people.GOD HELP US ALL,AND AMERICA.

Answer 6

well, it's a constant vague barrage by Republicans... people saying Iraq is part of the war on terror and that the war on terror is to stop those that attacked us on 9-11...

that's a pretty blatant linking, while not actually technically linking them... a huge "I'm not going to directly say it, but HEAVILY ALLUDE TO IT" attitude...

speakeasy: you list three meeting over like 20 years (that are all "reported" which is HORRIBLY VAGUE)? that's about the LEAST LINKS TO AL-QUEDA THAT ANY, I REPEAT ANY, MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY HAS... H*ll the CIA probably met more with his agents during that time period than Saddam did... is the U.S. a terrorist country?
THAT'S ABOUT 99 PERCENT PROPAGANDA BASED ON VERY THIN LINKS...

Answer 7

Oh, I could go on and on. but the simple answer is that way too Americans still believe that Fox News delivers the truth. The same group believes that "Jesus" is on their side.

They have to believe in something, but looking the truth right in the face is way too "unAmerican".

Any bit of evidence of wrongful decisions brought to light will be treated as an election ploy. Any outcry of a purely political order of the military that results in dishonor, will be treated as treason to those who serve, not to those who issue such orders.

Please forgive my soapbox answer, but I believe there are those who cling to an equally blinding faith in the left or right. Either God will provide on the right, or God has thrown up his hands on the left.

My take? How about we take matters in our own hands?

Answer 8

"Personally involved?" Him personally, probably not. Did he support terrorist violence or acts, most likely. Were any leaders in middle eastern countries actually involved? Probably not. Did they fund or support these actions? Absolutely.

We are at war with any country who supports these terrorist groups. Do we think Saddam did not? It took the USA & the UN months (years!) to try to negotiate with this man and regardless of the consequences, he refused. What should we have done? I wish we were not in Iraq - but what should we have done. I really don't get any straight answers.

Answer 9

Hey parshooter
I couldn't of said it better myself...
BRAVO - Dude - BRAVO!!!

You could add the Repugliscums
are now addicted to guzzling
Bush's Jesus Juice and need to
now attend AAA meetings to withdraw
from their addiction.

Answer 10

Looking at your Additional Details.. does that mean only press outlets with an anti-Bush agenda are reliable?