Urban Myth as Propaganda (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Scraping the bottom of the intel barrel.................

When President Bush, in an attempt to critisize the media for leaking information, talked this week about the consequences of leaking, he told the story about how bin Laden was able to elude authorities and eventually carry off the 911 attacks because the news media had leaked the fact that his cell phone was being monitored by US agents, prompting bin Laden to quit using the phone. Fact is, that story never happened - Not the way Bush alleges it did.

The facts are the following:

1) bin Laden was alerted, but not by the US media in 1998, but by the Taliban in 1996, who conjectured that we might be monitoring him. This was confirmed by US intelligence sources.

2) When the US media picked up on the story in 1998, bin Laden had not been using his cell phone for two years. The sources? US intelligence and bin Laden himself.

3) It has long been known by the US intelligence community that the story which Bush told this week was nothing more than an urban myth.

So why is Bush now using urban myths as propaganda? The answer has a lot to do with Bush getting caught with his pants down ordering illegal spying activities on American citizens by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon. Once you understand the reasons Bush would make such outlandish statements, then you begin to understand the context of Bush's remarks, which are from desperation, rather than truth.

Article is here.

 

[steen]

Yes, shrub lies. Time after time, our president lies; not for national security, but solely for dirty politics and a desire to mislead the American public.

I am eagerly awaiting the impeachment.

 

[scottyz]

He did well with the urban myth about Saddam and Bin Laden planning 9/11 together. IIRC Cheney wasn't surprised that the majority of Americans thought Iraq was tied to 9/11.

 

[Stinger]

He did well with the urban myth about Saddam and Bin Laden planning 9/11 together.

Why do you make this claim when in fact they were clearly saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and we had no evidence he did. Post the statement from the adminsitratin claiming otherwise.

 

[aps]

Why do you make this claim when in fact they were clearly saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and we had no evidence he did. Post the statement from the adminsitratin claiming otherwise.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html


Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html


"There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida,'' Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaida.''

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025


Vice President Dick Cheney says the hunt in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction will go on and [/b]he insists that there were ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. [/b] In an interview with NPR's Juan Williams, Cheney also says the United Nations has a potential role to play in Iraq's political transition.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1610113


Blaming what he called "lazy" reporters for blurring the distinction, Vice President Dick Cheney said that while "overwhelming" evidence shows a past relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Bush administration never accused Saddam of helping with the Sept. 11 attacks. . . .

Cheney, however, insisted the case was not closed into whether there was an Iraq connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. "We don't know."
[Oh brother :roll:]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/

 

[Stinger]

As I said the administration never claimed there was a connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attack, why do people keep trying to assert otherwise?

 

[aps]

As I said the administration never claimed there was a connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attack, why do people keep trying to assert otherwise?

By constantly talking about a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda and reminding everyone of what happened on September 11th and how you could not distinguish between Saddam or Osama--people naturally associated the two. You and I are smart enough to know otherwise--but the majority of Americans are uninformed when it comes to issues like this.

Those statements by the Bush administration were intentional, and rather pathetic.

For example:

Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html

Gawd, he is such an ass!

 

[Stinger]

By constantly talking about a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda

Which is NOT asserting that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Just because you made it up in your own mind does not make it the reality. The fact is they were quite determined in NOT making such a connection and assigning it to them is a flat out lie.

and reminding everyone of what happened on September 11th and how you could not distinguish between Saddam or Osama--people naturally associated the two.

Only those who were either too lazy to listen to what they were saying or to dumb to comprehend it or creating this issue for their own political gain.

As your cites showed they did NOT make that connection.

You and I are smart enough to know otherwise--but the majority of Americans are uninformed when it comes to issues like this.

Oh well but does that excuse the Democrats and the liberal media for constantly making this false assertion?

Those statements by the Bush administration were intentional, and rather pathetic.

For example:

Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html

Gawd, he is such an ass!

It was a stupid question but typical of the brainlessness of a great many White House reporters, but he did responded and quite properly. Why do you then use a juvenile invective against him for it?

 

[aps]

Which is NOT asserting that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Just because you made it up in your own mind does not make it the reality. The fact is they were quite determined in NOT making such a connection and assigning it to them is a flat out lie.

I didn't make it up in my own mind. I was stunned when they polled people on election day and heard/read that something like 40% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9-11. Whatever gave them that idea? *sarcasm*

Date: March 2003
WASHINGTON - 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.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

Here's more: October 21, 2004

More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe claims which the president has not made, and which virtually no experts believe to be true:

41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508

Only those who were either too lazy to listen to what they were saying or to dumb to comprehend it or creating this issue for their own political gain.

As your cites showed they did NOT make that connection.

Create the issue for their own political gain? LOL Okaaaaaaaaay. Most people are lazy and don't bother to verify information or delve into a political issue.

Oh well but does that excuse the Democrats and the liberal media for constantly making this false assertion?

People can make inferrences. If you cannot see the inference that many people made regarding Saddam and al Qaeda, then that's your problem.

It was a stupid question but typical of the brainlessness of a great many White House reporters, but he did responded and quite properly.

Oh sure: "Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert." Yeah, that's a totally appropriate response--you know, since they had sooooooooo many connections that poor wittle Georgie couldn't distinguish between the two. :roll:

Why do you then use a juvenile invective against him for it?

Because it makes me feel good--that's why. :lol: (Oh, and because it's true.)

 

[danarhea]

I didn't make it up in my own mind. I was stunned when they polled people on election day and heard/read that something like 40% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9-11. Whatever gave them that idea? *sarcasm*

Date: March 2003
WASHINGTON - 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.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

Here's more: October 21, 2004

More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe claims which the president has not made, and which virtually no experts believe to be true:

41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508




Create the issue for their own political gain? LOL Okaaaaaaaaay. Most people are lazy and don't bother to verify information or delve into a political issue.




People can make inferrences. If you cannot see the inference that many people made regarding Saddam and al Qaeda, then that's your problem.




Oh sure: "Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert." Yeah, that's a totally appropriate response--you know, since they had sooooooooo many connections that poor wittle Georgie couldn't distinguish between the two. :roll:




Because it makes me feel good--that's why. :lol: (Oh, and because it's true.)

Good post, which effectively debunks the Bushnevik apologists on this issue. What they do, of course, is continue to make the connection by inference over and over, and when people then start believing that Saddam was working directly with al Qaeda, then the Bushneviks say with a straight face that they never accused Saddam of that. At the same time, they continue to make the inferences between Saddam and al Qaeda, reinforcing the belief which they had ingrained in the population through the original inferences. It is the way propaganda works. It is also dishonest, but who said the Bushneviks were honest to begin with?

 

[steen]

Yup, as was pointed out before stinger's sophistry, bush lied.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Somehow, the "false assertion" "made by the Democrats and the liberal media" found more believers among Bush Backers than those who are not Bush Backers.

 

[Stinger]

I didn't make it up in my own mind. I was stunned when they polled people on election day and heard/read that something like 40% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9-11. Whatever gave them that idea? *sarcasm*

Democrats and leftist media.

Create the issue for their own political gain? LOL Okaaaaaaaaay. Most people are lazy and don't bother to verify information or delve into a political issue.

Sure and the Democrats know most people are too lazy to listen to what the administration says and so does CBS and NBC et al.

People can make inferrences. If you cannot see the inference that many people made regarding Saddam and al Qaeda, then that's your problem.

There was no inference, they were quite clear in saying there was no evidence Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, the only inferences were coming from those who wanted to say they did so they could make political hay out of it.

Oh sure: "Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert." Yeah, that's a totally appropriate response--you know, since they had sooooooooo many connections that poor wittle Georgie couldn't distinguish between the two.

If you read what he says it is quite clear and quite correct. Trying to say one was more dangerous than the other is folly, he didn't distinguish between the to in that manner. If the reporter then took that to mean that Saddam was part of 9/11 he/she should be fired for misreprenting an important story.

 

[aps]

Democrats and leftist media.

Sure and the Democrats know most people are too lazy to listen to what the administration says and so does CBS and NBC et al.

There was no inference, they were quite clear in saying there was no evidence Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, the only inferences were coming from those who wanted to say they did so they could make political hay out of it.

If you read what he says it is quite clear and quite correct. Trying to say one was more dangerous than the other is folly, he didn't distinguish between the to in that manner. If the reporter then took that to mean that Saddam was part of 9/11 he/she should be fired for misreprenting an important story.

Insufficient responses to debunk my brilliance. :lol:

Happy New Year to you, Stinger. :2wave:

 

[scottyz]

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

WASHINGTON – 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.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

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.

According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

http://www.factcheck.org/article203.html

 

[libertarian_knight]

Why do you make this claim when in fact they were clearly saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and we had no evidence he did. Post the statement from the adminsitratin claiming otherwise.

When you associate two people together, repeatedly, over and over and over, the reason is to paint a picture in people's mind, even if certain statements are not explicitly stated.

The administration used Bid Laden, Saddam and 9/11 in so many individual and consecutive sentences to make people associate the three events together. Furthermore, these statements are spoken, not wirtten, when the American People would be most exposed to them. There is a significant difference is the WAY a thing is said as opposed to the WAY it is written on paper.

Also evidenced is that the administration, many pundits and regular people had associated the names together SO MANY TIMES, when trying to specifically talk of one, they would accidentally say the other, as is the names were synonymous.

It is not necessary to associate two people to a specific event by explicitly establishing a relationship.

What's more, the administrations first statements explaiing Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 came over a YEAR after the initiation of the war. Why was that? ebcause these people are smart, and they knew full well they were going to take advantage of confusing language in order to gain support for the war in Iraq, period.

They could have said, in Novembet 2002, "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11." Bush could have said it in Jan 2003 during the state of the union. but what did he say instead?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

He associates Saddam and Al-Queda (and Al-Queda has already been associated with bin Laden, obviously). Uses words like terrorism, terrible, ect to associate Saddam with international terrorist activity. Having associated the Saddam and bin Laden in NUMEROUS speaches, goes on to say the vast Iraqi WMD stockpile could be in the hands of terrorists.

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. " Not only associating Hussein and 9/11 but also implying through language that Hussien is in part responsible for 9/11, as if 9/11 was part of his breakout from international control.

In all communication and writing, there are explicit and implict statements. I all communication and writing, words have specific denotation, but also connotations as well, that may not be part of the specific denotation.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Stinger,

When was the first public statement by a hgih administration official, made between Spetember 11, 2001 and April 1, 2003, that categorically denied a relationship between Saddam Hussien and the Sept 11th terrorist attacks?

 

[BWG]

Also evidenced is that the administration, many pundits and regular people had associated the names together SO MANY TIMES, when trying to specifically talk of one, they would accidentally say the other, as is the names were synonymous.

You mean, like this?

And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam -- Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated. - President George W. Bush-December 19, 2005

Bush Quote Source

 

[Stinger]

The administration stated outright they had no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11, they said it over and over. Saying that Saddam and Al qaeda had contacts, contacts they wanted to further for their own benifits is an entirely different matter. They only ones trying to make the association of Saddam and 9/11 was the left falsley claiming that Bush was saying it. If YOU made the association you did it with your own imagination and no one but yourself to blame for it.

 

[Stinger]

You mean, like this?





Bush Quote Source

So how do you make the leap to Bush claiming Saddam was involved in 9/11 with your post?

 

[Stinger]

Where in your cite does anyone in the administration claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11? I have no time to read these random cites you post which do not rebut the fact that the administration DID NOT make such a claim. Did the leftist media confuse some into thing the adminsitration was making the claim, well you are a good example, but the fact remains they did not.

 

[Stinger]

Good post, which effectively debunks the Bushnevik apologists on this issue.

How does it debunk anything when nowhere in the cite is anyone from the adminsitration making the claim that is falsely asserted in this thread?

Why do you people so desperately want to believe this nonsense? It's very simple Saddam did not have a role in 9/11 and the adminsitration never claimed he did in spite of the fact that the left wanted him too so they could use it as political hay. And you fell for it.

 

[Stinger]

Insufficient responses to debunk my brilliance. :lol:

Your brilliance is indebunkable, your false assertions are easy targets

Happy New Year to you, Stinger. :2wave:

And to you!

 

[Conflict]

Where in your cite does anyone in the administration claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11? I have no time to read these random cites you post which do not rebut the fact that the administration DID NOT make such a claim. Did the leftist media confuse some into thing the adminsitration was making the claim, well you are a good example, but the fact remains they did not.

Then why did we invade Iraq.... without some type of imminent threat of an offensive strike.. If there was no link between Al Quaeda and Iraq? What is the explanation of this? Bush proclaimed that Iraq posed some sort of imminent threat to us, did he not? What was the basis of this? Why are we in Iraq if they did not pose a terror related threat to us... under the veil of the war on terror.

The manifestation of Al-Quaeda in Iraq has only been present shortly after we forcefully occupied that land. You can't have it both ways. I site my brain as source. Educate me. I must just be an idiot on this subject. Of course the indisputable fact that Iraq is one of the most wealthy nations and more enriched in oil even than ANWAR has NOTHING to do with any of this.

Your thoughts, mr. Stinger?


Since there were no ties to Al-Quaeda nor terrorism we are just there to secure the oil fields and install a puppet democracy. That is the FACT of the matter... at least in my humble opinion.

 

[Stinger]

Then why did we invade Iraq....

Ah change the subject now I see. Unable to post a cite from the adminsitration claiming Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 I see.

The President has been quite clear and the Senate resolution spells it out quite clearly, if you failed to listen oh well.

If there was no link between Al Quaeda and Iraq?

There were links between Al qaeda and Saddam, but we have no evidence he had anything to do with the 9/11 attack, why do you confuse the two?

Bush proclaimed that Iraq posed some sort of imminent threat to us, did he not?

Imminent threat? No. If he had do you really believe we would have screwed around for 18 months with the UN? Do you really think the better plan would have been to wait for him to be an imminent threat?

What was the basis of this? Why are we in Iraq if they did not pose a terror related threat to us... under the veil of the war on terror.

That was part of it. Again you really need to educate yourself on this matters which were full vetted in the arena of public discourse.

The manifestation of Al-Quaeda in Iraq has only been present shortly after we forcefully occupied that land. You can't have it both ways.

What both ways?

I site my brain as source. Educate me. I must just be an idiot on this subject.

Well you said it not me.

Since there were no ties to Al-Quaeda nor terrorism we are just there to secure the oil fields and install a puppet democracy. That is the FACT of the matter... at least in my humble opinion.

Well you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. You might want to read the Interim Report of the ISG by Dr. Kay and the The Duelfer report and the Senate hearings and the 9/11 commission. And you might want to ponder that if we wanted to set up a puppet democracy we would have done so by now and not be fooling around with open elections.

Why do you denigrate the liberty the Iraqi's are forging for themselves?