2/3′s Of Americans Don’t Know What Year We Invaded Iraq

Ken McCracken • June 30, 2007

These, of course, would be the same people responding to all those polls show low approval of the war.

Nearly two thirds of all Americans do not know in what year US invaded Iraq, and less than half have an idea about the US casualty figures in Iraq, latest Pew Research poll shows.
Only 38% of a nationally representative sample of 1,017 American adults were able to correctly state that US invaded Iraq in 2003, while more than a third of the respondents incorrectly picked the year of the invasion was 2002, while 9% and 4% picked 2004 and 2005 respectively.

Given how woefully ill-informed much of the American public is on Iraq it’s little wonder the agenda-driven media has little trouble manipulating their opinions with it’s endlessly shallow, insipid “car bomb of the day” coverage.
It’s hard to see the bigger picture when you aren’t even paying close enough attention to know the basic details of the issue.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Media, Politics, War On Terror

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Everytime that the administration tried to link Saddam to Osama it had the suggestion of linking Saddam to 9/11

And the strong minded among us listened to the words and the arguments and saw the truth. The weak minded among us (Democrats) knew that Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it, and were susceptible to the Jedi mind tricks of Karl Rove….

There is no other reason to continually bring it up.

Hello? McFly? Look back to the very first post here and you’ll see it’s a leftie who cannot seem to move on. So, who is continually bringing it up? Sheesh!
http://www.superalerts.com/ george

The only people who ever talk about Saddam Hussein having anything to do with 9/11 are retarded liberals who accuse the right of making such claims.

graybeard: Put down the doobie and step away from the crack pipe!

lol… sorry you guys have to deal with the bar crowd. It must be closing time somewhere
Hawk

You guys are apologist morons. Everytime that the administration tried to link Saddam to Osama it had the suggestion of linking Saddam to 9/11. There is no other reason to continually bring it up. You are being wilfully blind because it got support for a war you wanted because of some adolescent fantasy to be tough, though for the majority of you when it comes time to actually be tough, you are just armchair soldiers.
skh.pcola

Oh…and reaally, what’s the point of the poll? There is no utility in asking trivia questions about the war, or any other event. If these idjits had found that a vast majority of the public could name the year that we “illegally invaded” Iraq [rolls eyes], I’m guessing that the “scientists” who conducted the “poll” would have started asking for the specific, just to make thier point. And my point is: This is a pointless poll.
skh.pcola

Why hasn’t anybody mentioned Saddam’s financial support of Paleoswinian suicide bombers? That helps establish his bona fides as a supporter of global jihadism.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

Rob,

Is the extra traffic really worth the incredible ignorance and willful gullibility that new readers such as Hawk and ews48 bring to the site?
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Yikes. I counted a total of six fallacies in ews48′s short comment.
graybeard

I challenge you to prove otherwise, and if you quote Cheney talking on Meet The Press or something several years ago (which is the quote you retarded libs always drag out for this) about being in Iraq in order to take care of the region where the 9/11 hijackers came from (“region” meaning the middle east in general) I’m going to have to come to your house and beat you to death with your mouse.

To quote your boy, “Bring it on”. Watch Dick Cheney debate Dick Cheney:

Cheney caught in bald-faced Lie

“Pretty well confirmed” vs “never confirmed”. You decide – Liar or….Damn Liar?

Conflating imaginary meetings between the leader of the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqi agents is directly linking Saddam to 9/11. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Bat One

Lik,

If you count the implications, as well as the errors of fact, there are at least 11 by my count.

EWS48,

You are, without a doubt, one of the most delusional dolts to ever post a comment here… and that is no small accomplishment.
robert108

The CIA didn’t certify that it was Al Quaeda that did the Cole bombing until the Bush administration.

Counter to leftie propaganda, all terrorists aren’t Al Qaeda, and we are at war with all of them, since they make war on us. What part of that don’t you understand?
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Hawk – You guys are apologist morons. Everytime that the administration tried to link Saddam to Osama it had the suggestion of linking Saddam to 9/11.

Look at this. Hawk is calling us “apologist morons” because we’re not taking the ASSumptions that he has taken.

There is no other reason to continually bring it up.

Is that why you’re continually bringing it up Hawk? Rob was right up above when he stated that, “The only people who ever talk about Saddam Hussein having anything to do with 9/11 are retarded liberals who accuse the right of making such claims.”

How right he was now that we see you continually bringing it up.

You are being wilfully blind because it got support for a war you wanted because of some adolescent fantasy to be tough, though for the majority of you when it comes time to actually be tough, you are just armchair soldiers.

More ASSumptions from Hawk.

This guy doesn’t have any real arguments. He’s only got assuming bluster and angry ignorance.
Hawk

The only people who ever talk about Saddam Hussein having anything to do with 9/11 are retarded liberals who accuse the right of making such claims.

Dick Cheney in 2004:

“It goes back to the early ’90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.

President Bush in 2002:

“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” and “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

President Bush in 2003:

“Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda” and “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”

Dick Cheney in 2004:

I continue to believe — I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I’m very confident that there was an established relationship there.

Are you trying to state that when the President and Vice President state that Iraq under Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda they are not suggesting that Saddam had a hand in 9/11?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

graybeard: Put down the doobie and step away from the crack pipe! No one in this administration said Saddam was responsible for 9/11! The ties were to terrorism and Al-Queda, not 9/11.
Come visit us in reality sometime!
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

likwidshoe,

Well, when one has neither the facts nor the law on one’s side, one is reduced to pounding on the table.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

Rob,

You’re a better man than I. The ignorance and gullibility on proud display from those two (amongst others) just sets my teeth on edge. If I want that level of trooferism stupidity I need only click over to the DUmmies or the KOSsacks.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Hawk – Are you trying to state that when the President and Vice President state that Iraq under Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda they are not suggesting that Saddam had a hand in 9/11?

Ahhh! So you’re assuming and then blaming the Bush administration for the assumption that you made.

That’s pretty shallow reasoning Hawk.
Lestat

The CIA didn’t certify that it was Al Quaeda that did the Cole bombing until the Bush administration.
graybeard

They are probably the same people that still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. But that is hardly surprising, since your president and his administration have been suggesting that for years.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Is there a statute of limitations?

Here’s a statue of limitations for you!
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

BTW: Does “Hawk” stand for Humorless Anti-War Kook?
http://ewebsmith.com/ ews48

What difference does it make when you illegally invaded a country because of a personal vendetta and greed? Is there a statute of limitations?

More important is the lack of knowledge that Bush and crew actually planned this in 1997 well before 9/11.

It should make you more uneasy that they knew who would be President during 9/11 in 1997. It sheds new light on the election fiasco and reporting of votes in Florida.
robert108

There is no other reason to continually bring it up.

The main reason to “bring it up” is to inform the American public of the real dangers posed by Islamic terrorists, which describes both Saddam and OBL, especially after the Clinton admin slept through the ascent of Al Qaeda, the continuing terrorism of Saddam, the Oil for Food scandal, the 1993 WTC bombing, the Cole, etc, etc.
It needs to be brought up again, because one of your leftie Presidential candidates is trying to sell the idea that the war on terrorism is “just a bumper sticker”.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.”-TJ
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

You guys are apologist morons. Everytime that the administration tried to link Saddam to Osama it had the suggestion of linking Saddam to 9/11. There is no other reason to continually bring it up.

Except for the argument about Iraq being part of the larger global war on terror. Which it is.

We went to Iraq to begin addressing the issues that cause global jihadism. Evidence of Saddam communicating with groups like al Qaeda and people like bin Laden (which, I notice, you don’t even try to disprove) is evidence in support of that mission, and the Bush administration has cited it frequently. As well they should.

So no, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But he had plenty to do with global terrorism. That you and your fellow lefties try to change the subject with the “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11″ canard/strawman is, well, telling.

You are being wilfully blind because it got support for a war you wanted because of some adolescent fantasy to be tough, though for the majority of you when it comes time to actually be tough, you are just armchair soldiers.

No, we are being factually accurate. The Bush administration has never once said that Saddam was involved with 9/11. And if you’re going to continue to assert that it did I’m going to continue to ask for evidence. Which you can’t provide, because this whole thing is a left-wing fantasy.

Nice to try and change the subject and go on the attack with the “chickenhawk” thing though, Dove. Artfully played, but I ain’t buying it.

You’re flat-out wrong here, and too dishonest to admit it.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

What difference does it make when you illegally invaded a country because of a personal vendetta and greed? Is there a statute of limitations?

Illegally invaded? You do know the war was authorized by Congress? Is still authorized by Congress, in fact, and just got funded again by a majority vote of Congress.

Is every single person in Congress and the White House a war criminal? Are you really that…insane?

More important is the lack of knowledge that Bush and crew actually planned this in 1997 well before 9/11.

Oh man. I can’t wait to hear you try and prove that one.

Please. Lay it on me. This is going to be better than Sopranos.

It should make you more uneasy that they knew who would be President during 9/11 in 1997. It sheds new light on the election fiasco and reporting of votes in Florida.

Really? Bush and his eeeeevvvillll Republican cohorts were able to coordinate a massive, nation-wide vote fraud that would have required the cooperation of numerous election officials across the country not to mention several judges and Supreme Court justices? All without a single person talking despite the intense media scrutiny of the thin election victory?

All that from a guy you guys on the left claim can’t walk and chew at the same time?

Give me a break.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Hawk decided to be the first jackass to step to the plate.

First up:

Dick Cheney in 2004:

Note that the VP is talking about connections between bin Laden and Saddam, not Saddam and 9/11. And there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam communicated with high-level al Qaeda officials up to and including bin Laden himself. There’s just no evidence that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11.

Next:

President Bush in 2002:

Again, this is Iraq and al Qaeda having a relationship. Not “Saddam helped al Qaeda with 9/11.”

Don Mattingly is a Yankee, but he didn’t help the Yankees win the series in 1996. Same thing with Saddam. He communicated with al Qaeda, but there’s no evidence that he helped them with 9/11.

President Bush in 2003:

Again, a perfectly true statement. Saddam worked with al Qaeda. Bush still isn’t drawing a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Just Saddam and terrorism.

And if you deny that connection exists, you may as well say up is down. Black is white. Michael Moore is skinny. Etc.

Dick Cheney in 2004:

Again, ties between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda. Not ties between Saddam and 9/11.

Are you trying to state that when the President and Vice President state that Iraq under Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda they are not suggesting that Saddam had a hand in 9/11?

I’m saying that Bush and Cheney mean exactly what they say. Bush and Cheney are saying that Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda had a connection. You can’t just leap from that to “Bush says Saddam helped with 9/11!!!” without further proof.

Words mean things, dummy.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

You do know that Osama bin Laden did other things in his life outside of 9/11 right? And that connecting Saddam to Osama and his operations doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re connecting Saddam to 9/11?

Really, what did you score on reading comprehension in school?

I’m curious. Seriously.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Is the extra traffic really worth the incredible ignorance and willful gullibility that new readers such as Hawk and ews48 bring to the site?

Well, I can’t really control who comes to the site and who doesn’t. I write my posts for anyone to read.

If you don’t like their comments, ignore ‘em.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

You’re a better man than I. The ignorance and gullibility on proud display from those two (amongst others) just sets my teeth on edge.

Meh. They make me look good.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

They are probably the same people that still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

The only people who ever talk about Saddam Hussein having anything to do with 9/11 are retarded liberals who accuse the right of making such claims.

Saddam Hussein supported international terrorism in general, including attacks against the US even if he wasn’t involved in 9/11 specifically.

But that is hardly surprising, since your president and his administration have been suggesting that for years.

No, the Bush administration hasn’t. Some people have twisted words around to imply that, but neither the President nor anyone in his administration has ever said that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

I challenge you to prove otherwise, and if you quote Cheney talking on Meet The Press or something several years ago (which is the quote you retarded libs always drag out for this) about being in Iraq in order to take care of the region where the 9/11 hijackers came from (“region” meaning the middle east in general) I’m going to have to come to your house and beat you to death with your mouse.

SayAnythingBlog.com

2/3′s Of Americans Don’t Know What Year We Invaded Iraq

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments