9/11 Lies -- Still a Huge Problem for Dems

In a recent diary, Plutonium Page wrote about the Bush Administration connecting everything, including anthrax, to Saddam.

In the diary, some incredible poll numbers were given:

• 64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (up slightly from 62% in November)

• 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November)

• 44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November)

• 36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November)

This is from February 2005.

Not October, 2001. Not January, 2002. Not March, 2003.

February, 2005.

Until people stop believing this, it will continue to hurt us in the voting booth.

What can be done? Well, I don't know. But I hope someone here does.

Really, I have no idea what to do about this.  

But the truth is still not known or believed by way too many people. We still have not been able to overcome the Myth that the Bush Administration has created -- that Saddam and the war in Iraq is tied to 9/11 and our safety.

Why are these numbers still so high?

Are people so believing in our President that nothing will sway them? Did people just buy into this idea and now cognitively they cannot change?

Is Karl Rove just that good?

But more importantly, what can be done? How can Democrats convince these people that the Myth of Saddam, the Myth of 9/11 is not true?

Can anything be done? Or do we just concede this point to the Republicans and live with it? Do we need to convince these people to win in 2006 and beyond?

Maybe we can use our influence here at Daily Kos and do something about this problem.

I'll open the floor to ideas...

•  I realize we're in the middle

  of Filibuster Wednesday, but thought this topic was important.

  by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:32:18 AM PDT

•  well according to a Zogby poll

  taken in late August 2004,

  "...half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders 'knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,'..."

  (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040830120349841)

  ...and I'm one of them. I do not wear a tinfoil hat, either.

  The quickest way to turn this around (by this I mean the topic of disinformation in your diary) is for sme mainstream Dems (and perhaps even a mainstream Repub) to take some of the unanswered questions being asked by the 9/11 Truth Movement seriously: because believe me there are troubling questions that need to be addressed.  

  I think this stuff is so important it transcends politics, but one upshot of any genuine reevaluation of what really happened on 9/11 would be the explosive potential to essentially ruin theBush administration.  
  

  by gnat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:40:58 AM PDT

  •  I don't think...

    getting into those questions is the answer. (I understand where you're coming from, though.)

    We don't need to get into any unanswered questions -- we have the facts in front of us. No WMD, no weapons capability, No ties to bin-Laden.

    Yet many don't see this as truth.

    by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:02:18 AM PDT

    •  well some things are too disturbing

      and important to brush aside for political expediency, and the Bush family and the CIA had more ties to OBL than SH did!

      But yes, Capone was convicted on taxes, so I would be glad to see Bush impeached on a "lesser" scandal than 9/11 complicity, and there are several potential scandal possibilities (Iraq war lies, Halliburton war profiteering, torture, maybe even old Jeff Gannon) swirling around Bush right now--IF ONLY THE MSM WOULD BITE.

      by gnat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:16:20 AM PDT

•  Head to the source.

  People believe these lies because someone tells them. The complication of those believing these lies not believing anything that doesn't come from one of their "news sources" makes your questions nearly impossible to answer.

  Until we cut off the flow of poison disguised as news, the believers will never question what they're told.

  Nice work, and thanks for reminding me how ignorant our populace still is.

  by zeitshabba on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:41:18 AM PDT

  •  So can we then

    influence the news? Can Democratic leaders start getting on TV and making this an issue? Can we push them to do that? Is that smart politically, or a waste of their time?

    Sorry for the reminder... :-)

    But I fear we'll once again lose on election day because this issue is still hanging out there.

    by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:04:15 AM PDT

    •  Before we can trumpet honest news...

      We have to dispel any illusion that Faux News is a true news source... the same with Rush, Hannity, etc..

      Once you show the diabolical plans of the slanted news organizations against the common US citizen, then they should seek alternate news sources for the long-lost truth.

      I'd suggest international news as the first step in a better news/media experience... But I'm not a person well-versed in the conversion of thinking Republicans...

      PS. I'm afraid that we'll lose the next election the same way the last few were stolen... These people do not play by the rules with arrogant pride.

      by zeitshabba on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:24:35 AM PDT

•  And all those missing socks

  all the socks you keep losing in the laundry... yep, Saddam took 'em.

  by tiggers thotful spot on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:43:39 AM PDT

•  Where you see despair,

  I see opportunity.

  Every Democrat speaking on national security/9-11 should state:  "You've been lied to by the GOP.  They've lied so long and so hard that they have tricked the country into believing"...state these statistics, correcting each with the indisputable truth.  After that, again emphasize that the GOP has been pathalogically lying to the American people.

  Then ask them a simple question:  "Do you want you and your children's safety, health, and well-being in the hands of a group of pathalogical liars?"

  Then you sell yourself and your ideas, based on reality.  You've already set yourself up as the arbiter of truth.

  And no, Rove is not "that good."  Rove is a fucking diabolical little bitch.  He's playing right out of the Nazi handbook.  That fuck isn't a boy genius, he's a Third Reich copycat.  

  by jre2k8 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:45:29 AM PDT

  •  "Should state"

    I agree with you -- but how do we get Democrats to start saying this? That's what I'm trying to get it.

    How can we put this on their agenda?

    Re: Rove, well, he's got a good track record. Apparently being a diabolical little bitch works in American politics. People seem to eat that shit up.

    by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:06:10 AM PDT

•  Rice in Baghdad

  "You see, this war came to us, not the other way around. The United States of America, when it was attacked on September 11, realized that we lived in a world in which we cannot let threats gather, and that we lived in a world in which we had to have a different kind of Middle East if we were ever to have a permanent peace."

  She's still pushing that load of crap.

  by debraz on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:46:30 AM PDT

  •  And the people are still...

    eating that shit up, at least according to the poll sited.

    by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:08:08 AM PDT

•  the 9/11 Myths don't end with Saddam

  Quite possibly the most telling sign that we've been seriously lied to is the pervasive "The Government did what it could to stop those attacks, and it was just incompetence, bad luck, and craft terrorists that led to their success" myth that persists.  That's one of those wishful-thinking scenarios that neglects many major pieces of information that the Government and our lap dog media continue to ignore.

  So how about we review NORADs and the FAA belated, contradictory , and effectively lethal response to the hijacked jets on 9/11.  They make the response to the recent DC cessna incursion look look like the friggin' pinnacle of promptness.  

  What could have caused the inexplicable delay in scrambling those fighters on that fateful day?  Could the numerous, simultaneous, well-documented wargames that were taking place that day have anything to do with it?  You know, those wargames that the media and government NEVER talk about and WANT YOU TO FORGET.  Could they have something to do with the attrocious response time to four simultaneous hijackings?  How about the simulated wargame of a plane-crashing into a building scheduled for that day (I remember reading this story in the NYTimes...try finding an archive of it online.  It's damn near impossible)?  Could that have something to do with it?  Could Operation Northern Vigilance, that had tons of our planes in Alaskan airspace engaged in a simulated Russian Bomber attack have something to do with it?  What about Vigilant Guardian, the wargame they actually acknowledge in the 9/11 Commission Report (do a text search for "Vigilant Guardian".  It's clearly and fully discussed...in a 5 sentence footnote! :-)  )  

  Would all of these wargames explain the contradictory timelines the FAA and NORAD submitted, something Senator Dayton (D-MN) courageously highlighted during the week of the Democratic National Convention last year and was virtually ignored by the MSM (I remember reading this story in the NYTimes on like page A12.  Boy was that story forgotten fast!)?

  And how does all this jive with General Meyers assertion that the Wargames actually enhanced our response!  Seriously, watch this amazing video of Cynthia McKinney grilling Rumsfeld and Meyers on this very topic in just March of this year (watch the video at the bottom of the page.  It's about 20 minutes and covers some other topics, all of which make Rummy squirm!).  So without those wargames I wonder what our response time would have been?  2 hours?  3 hours?  Oh, if only we could ask those FAA controllers what took place

  And this is the tip of the iceberg folks...the Truth is out there, and it's scary as shit!

  by glooperoo on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:47:31 AM PDT

  •  I hear what you're saying, but...

    I don't think we need to get into all this to help win elections.

    The facts we already know should be enough to stop people from still believing Saddam is tied to 9/11. Yet the poll shows they don't.  

    by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:28:37 AM PDT

    •  cscs

      well I also hear you here, but again some people might argue that getting to the bottom of the murder of 3000 innocent Americans trumps all political considerations.

      by gnat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:56:09 AM PDT

      •  It's two separate issues, isn't it?

        Isn't whatever happened on 9/11 a separate issue from people not believing the facts that are already on the record?

        I'm not arguing here that getting to the bottom of 3000 people murdered isn't more important than politics. It's a separate issue that should be dealt with. But I don't see how it's tied to what I wrote in my diary?

        People still believe Saddam was behind 9/11, they still believe it was Iraqis on the planes and they still believe Saddam had WMD. Those people went to the polls believing Bush keeps them safe, and they still believe it today.

        That affects politics and elections, and that's what I wanted to talk about in the diary.

        by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:38:40 AM PDT

        •  yes and no

          it's both related and unrelated.

          You are suggesting that the Dems need to do a better job framing the issue, by having them say something like the following:

          "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and that has been proven. Not even Bush can disagree with that fact. And the WMD Saddam was suppoedly stockpiling were a convenient fabrication (i.e. lie) of the Bush administration to lead us into a war: a war that was not only a distraction from the real war on terror (the war on OBL, who is STILL at large), but has made the sitution worse (by creating a terrorist breeding ground and mideast instability in Iraq)"

          That's a good start.

          I'm saying, in an ideal world, the Dems would say:

          "Why was here never a criminal investigation into 9/11, the one day that the Bush administration has benefited from. Who told the terrorists about the NORAD war games, so that they picked the one day that NORAD would be hampered from scrambling fighter jets? Why was Porter Goss having breakfast on 9/11 with a Pakistani intelligence general who wired Atta $100k? Who made theput option trades on United and American the night before 9/11? Why was Sandy Berger caught cutting up 9/11 documents and then fined for it? When a small plane recently disrupted DC airspace, jets were scrambld in time. Why did thi not happen on 9/11? Why were the 52 FAA warnings withheld from the public until after Rice's confirmatin as Secretary of State? Now that Tom Ridge admitted that the HS warning system was politically tainted, why has no one been held accountable?"

          Etc.

          You are attempting to compartmentalize. I am attempting to bridge stories so that we begin to see the whole truth. You are thinking of reclaiming the WH for Dems; I am thinking of literally saving America.  

             

          by gnat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 10:04:50 AM PDT

          •  ok.

            Thank you, I better understand what you're saying now.

            The difference between your two examples is that we have the facts in the first, while the second are still open questions.

            I guess my reaction is that if we can't get everyone to believe what are already facts about Saddam, I don't see us ever getting people to believe whatever answers we may eventually get to your questions.

            Maybe by getting people to accept the basic facts about Saddam, it would open the door to people accepting what's behind your questions...
            

            by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 10:43:46 AM PDT

        •  I don't want to side track you from the intent

          of your diary.  The truth of 9/11 is a tricky topic.  but keep in mind that there are A LOT 9/11 myths beyond the Saddam Connection and when it comes to winning elections, few things would raise an eyebrow or create some hesistancy to vote GOP and empower Bush than widespread knowledge of the most egregious 9/11 facts.  And, the way I see it, if what I'm suggesting about the truth of 9/11 is even half right, we got WAY bigger problems than this Iraq War and winning the next election.  

          by glooperoo on Wed May 18, 2005 at 10:06:56 AM PDT

•  It's what they want to believe...

  Many Americans are not intellectually energetic. (To be fair, I think that holds true for the human species in general.) Humans are lazy. Now 9/11 shook almost everyone out of their laziness. When shaken out of its stupor, the public seeks an answer- "blame someone" followed by "get revenge."
  
  
  
  The stupor has set back in. Once guns were blazing, the lazy Americans checked out.
  

  by dcookie on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:57:49 AM PDT

  •  So we can do nothing about it?

    Which may be a valid answer. I don't know.

    by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:40:19 AM PDT

•  Skeptical

  I am very skeptical about some of these figures. I have never yet heard a real, live person claim that Saddam was behind 9-11. The closest I've heard to that is a sort of crude ethno-religious vendetta theory for supporting the Iraq War, that since Arabs/Muslkism attacked us on 9-11 we need to get even with Arabs/Muslims and ity doesn't much mattaer where or who.

  by Aleks311 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:48:07 AM PDT

  •  I don't doubt them

    I agree about the "planning" numbers, but certainly everything else I've heard people say.

    by cscs on Wed May 18, 2005 at 10:51:43 AM PDT