Has the Bush Doctrine failed?

[Undertoad]

Facts?

Depends on whether you read articles, or only headlines. Depends on whether you apply critical thinking when you read the newspaper.

That USA Today headline: Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

The second paragraph: Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda.

Follow along with me. The headline word 70% was actually 69%. (Next year, it'll be 75%.) The headline word believe was actually the poll result "is likely". Critical thinkers will notice that "is likely" is a good step short of "belief".

The article really fails to mention much about the methodology of the poll, except that 100% of responses were from people willing to answer the phone. Still, one might imagine a poll question: "On whether Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks on 9/11, do you think this is very unlikely, somewhat unlikely, somewhat likely, or very likely?"

In 2003, one could imagine 69% casually answering in one of the two "likely" columns even while having a sophisticated understanding of the matter. But even "very likely" falls short of "belief".

Lastly, this paragraph tells us the writer is flailing to write the most anti-administration article possible:

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

"Veteran pollsters say" followed by a complicated narrative having little to do with the poll. Could the writer be more transparent? Who are these veteran pollsters? It all sounds roughly scientific, as if we are dealing with "facts" here -- but isn't it obviously just a flimsy pretext for the writer to throw out a bunch of conjecture?

[headsplice]

Nope. No conflation between 9/11 and SH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1j_GUvrysA
The point being...the Bush Administration rarely comes right out and says that there's a link between the two , they imply that there's a link.

[JayMcGee]

sorry, headsplice.....

70% say SH was involved, and this being a democracy an'all you just got to accept the fact that he was democratically elected to have been ivolved in the 9/11 plot. You cannot deny the will of the people.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Facts?

Depends on whether you read articles, or only headlines. Depends on whether you apply critical thinking when you read the newspaper.

That USA Today headline: Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

The second paragraph: Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda.

Follow along with me. The headline word 70% was actually 69%. (Next year, it'll be 75%.) The headline word believe was actually the poll result "is likely". Critical thinkers will notice that "is likely" is a good step short of "belief".

The article really fails to mention much about the methodology of the poll, except that 100% of responses were from people willing to answer the phone. Still, one might imagine a poll question: "On whether Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks on 9/11, do you think this is very unlikely, somewhat unlikely, somewhat likely, or very likely?"

In 2003, one could imagine 69% casually answering in one of the two "likely" columns even while having a sophisticated understanding of the matter. But even "very likely" falls short of "belief".

Lastly, this paragraph tells us the writer is flailing to write the most anti-administration article possible: "Veteran pollsters say" followed by a complicated narrative having little to do with the poll. Could the writer be more transparent? Who are these veteran pollsters? It all sounds roughly scientific, as if we are dealing with "facts" here -- but isn't it obviously just a flimsy pretext for the writer to throw out a bunch of conjecture?

I agree, 70% or 69% makes all the difference. The 75% is all yours, never have said that, so try to keep the discussion clean.

The rest of your argumentation is basically semantics. Fact is that a great majority believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. Fact is also, that right after the event itself less than 5% believed Saddam was involved. 2 years later a great majority believed Saddam was, now ask yourself UT, how can that happen?

What do you think about Woodward's quote?

[Undertoad]

It's not semantics. It's fact. What you are quoting as fact is precisely not a fact.

I understand more about the culture and what American people believe because I actually live in it. You sit there thousands of miles away enjoying your self-indulgent, Monday morning coach opinion about what the American people believe. It's insulting and borderline bigotry and does not actually solve the world's problems. And I'm not going to sit here and argue with it when facts brought to the table are ignored.

[Flint]

Ya! You and your fancy Valhalla opinions! This is the American intenet, you cheese-eater!

[Hippikos]

The culture of the American White House is to connect 9/11 with Saddam/Iraq, no more no less. With your apparent unbiassed, unbiggotted understanding you know the great majority of the US population firmly believed in the Saddam/Iraq-9/11 connection.

Cheney repeatedly, even after if was revealed as bogus, referred to meetings of Mohammed Atta in Prague with Saddam's secret service.

More Cheney: "Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact."

Asked about polls showing that most Americans believe that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks, Cheney replied, "I think it's not surprising that people make that connection."

You see UT? The devious connections being made all the time. It reminds me of this advertising trick, showing the product a tenth of a second every time in a movie of TV program. People afterwards knew they had seen it, but never knew why.

It's insulting and borderline bigotry and does not actually solve the world's problems. And I'm not going to sit here and argue with it when facts brought to the table are ignored.

The internet is one of my sources. News, books, newspapers are some others. Too bad that not many other Americans take the time to read what really happened. Too bad you now revert to name calling and emotional outbursts.

Ya! You and your fancy Valhalla opinions! This is the American intenet, you cheese-eater!

Crikey! Now there's an argumentation! Really dunno what to say, Flint Eastwood.

PS UT, do you also dispute what Woodward wrote? You keep on evasing my question.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Really dunno what to say, Flint Eastwood.

Say? No, no, no... Now we arm wrestle!

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Flint

Say? No, no, no... Now we arm wrestle!

OK, enough is enough, hand bags at dawn!

[Undertoad]

I don't know what Woodward wrote, I didn't read his book.

The administration can't communicate its way out of a paper bag, yet they are supposed to have subliminally convinced a nation to go to war. They're at 35% approval ratings yet they are supposed to be so wily as to convince even Democrats through innuendo and suggestion. Junior is the most inarticulate President we've had in memory yet he's supposed to have carefully chosen language to scare people into support. 69% of the people were somehow convinced through a Cheney appearance on Larry King Live when 1% of people watch Larry King Live and 69% would have a hard time remembering the vice-president's first name.

[Flint]

Typical, non-book-reading American! Books aren't just for burning, you know...

I read them all the time... I like the ones with pictures!

[Undertoad]

I did read Woodward's book on John Belushi. Belushi was fiercely against the Soviets entry into Afghanistan and that's why they had him killed! Bastards!

Damn reds and their samurai chef-hate!

[Hippikos]

I don't know what Woodward wrote, I didn't read his book.

You disputed Richard Clarke, so I assume you read his book?

Apparently you forgot the quote I mentioned or you're too lazy to scroll back. Lemme repeat:

Furthermore Woodward wrote in his book "Bush on War": already on September 17, six days later, Mr. Bush affirmed, "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now."

So, do you dispute WW, call him a liar, or do you call Bush a liar?

Belushi was fiercely against the Soviets entry into Afghanistan and that's why they had him killed! Bastards!

Incorrect, Belushi was linked to al-Qaeda.