| A CBS/NY Times poll [PDF] released September 9 once again reminds us of how deep misinformed the American people are: 33% believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.
| q88 Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? | | | Total | Rep | Dem | Ind | Sep06a | | Yes | 33 | 40 | 27 | 32 | 31 | | No | 58 | 51 | 63 | 60 | 57 | | Don't Know/No Answer | 9 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 12 |
In a piece titled, "Polls, Truth Sometimes At Odds: Political Views, Psychology Can Make People Believe In Falsehoods", CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic wrote:
How can people believe something that isn't true?
A significant number of Americans say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
That number rose above 50 percent in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003. While that belief has since declined somewhat, for many Americans it still exists. In the latest CBS News/New York Times Poll 33 percent said they believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
As has been repeated over and over, there was and is no evidence of any such link. So why do so many people believe something that just isn't true?
For belief in this particular lie, Frankovic considers partisanship (see above), education (44% of those with a high school education or less vs. 20% of college grads agree), attitudes toward the war (nearly half those who say the war was right),
| q20 Do you think the United States made a mistake getting involved in the current war with Iraq or not? | | | Total | Rep | Dem | Ind | May04b | | Made a mistake | 62 | 31 | 86 | 68 | 50 | | Did not make a mistake | 34 | 64 | 13 | 28 | 46 | | DK/NA | 4 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
and believing that we're eliminating terrorists by fighting in Iraq, (49%).
| q87 Right now, is the U.S. involvement in Iraq creating more terrorists who are planning to attack the U.S., eliminating terrorists who are planning to attack the U.S., or is the U.S. involvement in Iraq not affecting the number of terrorists planning to attack the U.S.? | | | Total | Rep | Dem | Ind | Aug07a | | Creating more terrorists | 40 | 19 | 57 | 43 | 46 | | Eliminating terrorists | 23 | 43 | 8 | 19 | 18 | | Not affecting the number | 27 | 27 | 24 | 29 | 27 | | Don't Know/No Answer | 10 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 9 |
Unfortunately the poll data provided doesn't include cross-tabs so we can inspect the correlations of belief in this lie to the full range of question asked. But it's not hard to imagine how it probably relates to questions such as:
| WHAT IS THE U.S. FIGHTING FOR IN IRAQ? | | | All
Americans | Iraq War
was right | Iraq War
was wrong | | Stable democracy | 30% | 45% | 17% | | Oil | 18 | 8 | 27 | | Defeat terrorism | 11 | 21 | 5 | | Finish 1st Gulf War | 5 | 1 | 8 | | Help Iraqi people | 4 | 4 | 4 | | Don't Know | 23 | 12 | 30 |
or:
| q56 Do you think of the war with Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, or do you think of it as separate from the war on terrorism? IF YES, ASK: Is it a major part of the war on terrorism, or a minor part of the war on terrorism? | | | Total | Rep | Dem | Ind | Jul07b | | Major part | 38 | 61 | 22 | 32 | 32 | | Minor part | 13 | 17 | 10 | 11 | 14 | | Not part | 47 | 21 | 64 | 54 | 46 | | DK/NA | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
Or:
| q76 In making its case for the war with Iraq, do you think members of the Bush Administration intentionally misled the public or not? | | | Total | Rep | Dem | Ind | Dec05a | | Intentionally misled | 60 | 25 | 85 | 66 | 52 | | Did not | 36 | 70 | 10 | 30 | 44 | | DK/NA | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
Repeating The Lies of Yesteryear
In fact, we know that Bush not just mislead, but lied in taking us to war--and so did British Prime Minister Tony Blair. When the two of them kicked of the propaganda campaign to take us to war in September 2003, they did so with a lie, and at least some of media did at least a half-decent job of reporting--at least at firt. For example, CNN's story, "Bush, Blair make case against Iraq: Confusion over Iraqi nuke report":
CAMP DAVID, Maryland (CNN) -- President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday there is ample evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, but critics questioned that conclusion and late Saturday some of the evidence the leaders cited was brought into question.
Both leaders cited a report indicating possible nuclear construction by Iraq, although a spokesman for the international agency in charge of nuclear inspection said no conclusions could be drawn from the report.
But by Saturday evening the whole issue of the existence of a "new report" was being denied by officials at the White House, the National Security Council, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the supposed author of the alleged report.
Blair said on Saturday morning, "We only need look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at a former nuclear weapon site."
He said satellite pictures indicate new construction in Iraq at "former nuclear weapon sites."
Blair said he had just read about a number of attempts by Saddam to conceal weapons of mass destruction and concluded that he must act. "A policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to," he said.
Later in the day, officials confirmed the IAEA does have satellite photographs which the agency's scientists say show fresh construction and new buildings at weapons sites where U.N. weapons inspectors once visited.
But the IAEA said it has been reviewing these pictures for more than two years and that there are no new photos or evidence of Iraqi nuclear activity.
The New York Times wrote about the satellite pictures in an article published Friday.
'There's no report'
"There's no report," IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky, said.
"[Bush and Blair] are going off of a New York Times article that really didn't get it right yesterday. In fact, we issued a press release last night saying there's no new information about any Iraqi nuclear activity, and until we get inspectors on the ground we can't draw any conclusion about whether they're in compliance with the Security Council resolutions with regard to nuclear activities."
Later, the article went on to quote Scott Ritter: Ritter: 'He has no credibility'
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, in Baghdad as a private citizen to address the Iraqi National Assembly Sunday and perhaps head off war, was critical of calls for a regime change in Iraq.
Ritter, who looked for weapons in Iraq from 1991 until 1998, when he was called back to the United States two days prior to a U.S. attack on Iraq, said an ultimatum from Bush would carry no weight with the Iraqis.
"One of the problems with President Bush issuing that kind of ultimatum is that he has no credibility," Ritter said. "Members of his administration have said inspections don't matter. Members of his administration have said that, even if they get back in Iraq and succeed in disarming Iraq, that they're still going to seek regime removal."
The Bush administration appears to be using the issue of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to go to war, Ritter said.
"This is about President Bush's own domestic political agenda in which he and his administration have invested so much political capital behind the concept of getting rid of the Iraqi president that they boxed themselves in to a rhetorical corner and are desperate to advance this situation. So they're using weapons inspections as such an excuse."
Unfortunately, this level of critical reporting quickly disappeared under a relentless propaganda onslaught. Media coverage started off at it's most critical and went downhill rather quickly after that. It's not that no one knew there were problems with "the intelligence." People knew from the very start that "the intelligence" was being made up out of thin air. But under relentless pressure, they soon forgot what they once knew, and then forgot that they had ever known it.
The lies that we are being told today are just as transparent as the kick-off lie about a non-existent IAEA report, and--just like four years ago--the only thing that makes those lies credible is the incredible pressure put on people to accept them, to swallow their questions, to turn off their minds, and repeat that lies are truth, black is white, and slavery is freedom. It is the "serious people" in Washington, the "sensible centrists" who are at the very core of this strategy, making it work through their dogged devotion to.... well, maybe they can explain just what when their turn at Nuremberg comes 'round. |
