From: "Mark" 


"Monte Davis"  wrote in message
news:emgum1dgtidao3s8b7e4nps5unnn0r7pfg{at}4ax.com...
> "Mark"  wrote:
>
>>Search for it Monte.
>
> In other words, you have no source, and are spinning.

No, that's not it Monte. Just not real interested in replaying the same
argument 2 years later.

=====
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer
A number of public-opinion experts agreed that the public automatically
blamed Iraq, just as they would have blamed Libya if a similar attack had
occurred in the 1980s. There is good evidence for this: On Sept. 13, 2001,
a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement --
even though the administration had not made a connection. The belief
remained consistent even as evidence to the contrary emerged. "You can
say Bush should be faulted for not correcting every single misapprehension,
but that's something different than saying they set out deliberately to
deceive," said Duke University political scientist Peter D. Feaver.
"Since the facts are all over the place, Americans revert to a
judgment: Hussein is a bad guy who would do stuff to us if he could."

Key administration figures have largely abandoned any claim that Iraq was
involved in the 2001 attacks. "I'm not sure even now that I would say
Iraq had something to do with it," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D.
Wolfowitz, a leading hawk on Iraq, said on the Laura Ingraham radio show on
Aug. 1.

A top White House official told The Washington Post on July 31: "I
don't believe that the evidence was there to suggest that Iraq had played a
direct role in 9/11." The official added: "Anything is possible,
but we hadn't ruled it in or ruled it out. There wasn't evidence to
substantiate that claim."

But the public continues to embrace the connection.
========

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5