Quote:
Originally Posted by Splum
1. The BBC has a known liberal bias, I dont see any sources for their 70% figure so this is why I take that with a grain of salt.
2. The poll also says "70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks" ...not Iraq - while that may at first seem like nitpicking any sane person knows Saddam was a very bad person with intentions of defying the USA so the "poll" could have been skewed based on this wording the poll would have been more accurate had it asked "Do you believe Iraq was involved in the attacks on 9/11"
3. I am not trying to prove that Bush didnt spin anything, I am pointing out that INTELLIGENT people never "assumed" Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.
4. Really its all a moot point because Saddam HAD to go period, anyone who couldnt see that deserves to spend a life "assuming" things.
|
I will agree with you that Saddam had to go. There is no arguing that he was a monster who did terrible things to his people and would harm others, including us, if he had the means. I guess I differ with some people on how we should have gone about it, but you are right, he was a bad guy.
The thing that annoys me the most about Bush is that everytime he want's to do something controversial he plays the 9/11 /saftey card and tries to convice people that if they don't follow him blindly another 9/11 will happen or we will not be safe.
As for people thinking that Saddam and Iraq are two different entities I would argue that when people say Iraq they think Saddamn and when they say Saddamn they think Iraq. In the minds of many they are one in the same. Here is an article from the Washington Post saying that 40% of Americans thought Iraq was involved in 9/11 I would imagine if you asked the same people "was saddamn involved in 9/11?" you would get the same answer.