Most Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11?
From TruthAboutIraq
No poll has ever shown that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. What some polls did show was that Americans, in the months after 9/11, began thinking about and discussing the possibility that Saddam (who had a long history of sponsoring terrorism and attacking Americans) might have had something to do with 9/11. Which is hardly the same thing. Nor did the Bush administration ever suggest that Saddam was behind the attacks. Indeed, administration officials regularly and without hesitation denied having any evidence of such a link. Editorials in the press seem to have routinely spun these facts away to create a fantasy of an intentional, concerted campaign by the White House to confuse the public, and a gullible public that believed it.
Contents |
[edit] False Impressions
A piece by the Christian Science Monitor written March 14, 2003[1], states:
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11....
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
The Washington Post, on September 6, 2003[2], writes:
Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."...
A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence "overwhelming."...
A number of public-opinion experts agreed that the public automatically blamed Iraq, just as they would have blamed Libya if a similar attack had occurred in the 1980s. There is good evidence for this: On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement -- even though the administration had not made a connection. The belief remained consistent even as evidence to the contrary emerged.
On September 18, 2003, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer[3] reported:
President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.
The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
As exemplified by these quotes, Administration critics have repeatedly claimed that the Administration intentionally allowed a link to form in the public consciousness, notwithstanding the Administration's repeated flat denials that any such link existed.
[edit] vs. Intentional Misinterpretation
A document at the White House Web site describing The National Security Strategy of the United States of America[4], illustrates the kind of language the Administration has used since September 11, 2001:
The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies’ efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action. (emphasis added)
The word "before" is used no less than four more times in the document, in phrases like: "destroying the threat before it reaches our borders," and "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction," and "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed," and "nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves." On the other hand, the word "Iraq" is used just once when describing the "irrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people." Thus, the Administration has tried to make a distinction between retribution for the attacks of September 11, 2001, and prevention of similar attacks before they are committed, regardless of the source.
Phrases such as "hinted at a link" are interpreted by the Administration and its supporters as attempts to change the meaning of these statements, because officials failed to say outright what suspicious critics believed the Administration was secretly thinking. Supporters correctly point out that if direct quotes existed, the media would use them to discredit the Administration directly, rather than trying to use these veiled "hints".
What Administration officials may have believed that contradicts these statements cannot be known without supporting evidence.
