Posted on 08/19/2007 5:45:21 AM PDT by Simon Bank
Many Americans have lingering confusion about Iraq's role in the 9/11 attacks, a new Newsweek study reveals.
For its "What You Need to Know" cover story, Newsweek found troubling gaps in knowledge of the 1,001 adult Americans who participated in a poll to test their knowledge of politics, foreign affairs, business, technology and popular culture. As the poll summary reports: "The results were mixed, to be charitible."
Even today, more than four years into the war in Iraq, as many as four in 10 Americans (41 percent) still believe Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11, even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection. A majority of Americans were similarly unable to pick Saudi Arabia in a multiple-choice question about the country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were born. Just 43 percent got it right—and a full 20 percent thought most came from Iraq.
Still, seven in 10 (70 percent) are aware that the United States has not discovered any hidden weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began. And perhaps because most (85 percent) are aware that Osama bin Laden remains at large, roughly half of the poll’s respondents (52 percent) think that the United States is losing the fight against his terror group, Al Qaeda, despite no military defeats or recent terrorist attacks to suggest as much.
Here in Sweden there is much doubt whether the war in Iraq is about Al-Qaeda. It´s almost hopeless to be one of the good guys in this socialist country.
Most of the politicians say the war in Iraq is a misstake and they think a better solution is to attack the country that is behind 9/11.
Swedish politicians often talk about wahabism as a problem. I don´t think wahabism is the problem. I do believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 but my socialist country doesn't share my views.
It just goes to prove that 41% of Americans are morons.
Wahabism is a major part of the problem... Islam is the rest of it.
ML/NJ
I don't but he still needed to be gone....so get over it.
But I think the irony is that President Bush never said he was. The Republicans have never emphasized his role in 9/11, just his role and ability in other terrorist activities.
So why do 41% of Americans associate Saddam with 9/11? It's because the Democrats talk about it so much.
Sadam might not have been directly involved in
9/11, but you can be sure he was helping orchestrate
terror against the U.S.
-and how do you KNOW it isn't just you? ;^)
While I don’t think he planned it I have very little trouble believing that he would have done anything he could to help it along.
Sadamm was a terrorist supporting dictator who probably did not have direct involvement in 9/11, but still supported terrorism. There were a lot of reasons to get rid of Saddam prior to 9/11, the war on terror put the nail in the coffin.
Exactly, but the media tries to plant words in their mouths so they can call them liars. It worked well with the 'imminent threat' deal, and Chenney fell for it. The Bush administration did not use those words for the case for war, but months after the fact the media got Chenney to repeat those words in an interview and it became the central point in the 'Bush lied' mantra.
2). We have found WMDs in Iraq, and they have been used for very small attacks against our troops.
Newbie, if you're trying to get Freepers to agree, you won't. Saddam supported terrorism in general but had no apparent direct links to 9/11.
Oh, and welcome to FR.
Even under Bill Clinton, the U.S. government's position had always been that terrorist groups needed a state sponsor to be able to pull off really large and complex attacks like 9/11. Yet suddenly this doctrine disappears after 9/11. Why? Do people really believe that 19 hijackers were trained and this entire plot funded and managed out of some cave in Afghanistan? That is what is moronic, if you ask me.
Welcome to FR.
5.56mm
And I forgot to add that Iraq’s fingerprints were all over the first WTC attack in 1993. Read Laurie Mylroie’s writings about this and you might change your mind about Iraq’s involvement in 9/11.
True, what you said.
What purpose DID Salman Pak serve exactly? A grounded, empty airliner?
Salman Pak was a very large facility to train fedahyeen, and terrorists from all over the world. Remember, Saddam paid the Pali suicide/homicide bombers' families $25K per kill. Ramsey Usef received all of his training (i.e. explosives, etc.) there. Usef carried an Iraqi passport, as did his co-conspirators.
When the U.S. military took Salman Pak, they killed all kinds of hajis (e.g. Syrian, Saudi, Yemeni, etc.).
5.56mm
The deterrent effect of dethroning, trying, and executing Saddam Hussein cannot be understated.
The War in Iraq won't kill off all (1 billion+) potential terrorists. That was never the intent. But it's a less than subtle reminder to other despots that we mean business, and we will strike back when hit.
Before I say the 41% are misinformed, I want to see the exact question they were asked. It’s not like Newsweek hasn’t been known to distort the truth or even lie about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.