Yes, people like me just like to imagine things. And if I say "You are in my way. I will kill anyone who's in my way", it can't by no means be taken as a threat to you, can it? Since I didn't say I will kill you...
Or if I say the leader of the most powerful nation in the world is a liar, you don't know who I'm talking about since I didn't say his name, right?

You really think it's impossible for Bush's administration to have linked Iraq to 9/11 without saying "Iraq is linked to 9/11"? They did manage to succesfully link Iraq with al-Qa`eda with no evidence to back up the claim. But I'm sure you can blame the stupid people who shouldn't have believed what the government tells them. They managed to convince Iraq is a threat to the US without any evidence etc.

Don't you wonder where all your fellow countrymen have gotten the idea of Iraq and Saddam being involved in 9/11? They just made it up out of nowhere? (I know, they just imagine things and the administration can't be blamed for the stupidity of millions of Americans...)

No, those are pretty basic communication strategies they are using and it is not a big secret that you can make people believe things without saying the exact words out loud. You can confuse people by giving contradictory information, spread misinformation etc. You can demand a quote from Bush saying Iraq is responsible for 9/11 all you want but it really is not necessary to prove my point.

And in my world we would expect some evidence of e.g. wmd and links to terrorist organisations and actual threats and not take only the word of our leader that someone is a threat to us before we attack. We wouldn't be satisfied with lies and half-truths fed to us and would be critical about the information that is spread by our government. But I quess we live in different worlds.

And talking about different ways to listen to what is said to a person...Here is the list of reasons for the war you gave to muspell:

Do you still believe in those reasons? I'm just asking since I haven't seen any proof backing up any of them. Nevertheless, the Bush administration stated them as facts and the American people believed its leaders. But all of the above reasons (lies) have of course nothing to do with the fact that Iraq is linked to 9/11 in the minds of many Americans.

So if you think they haven't done their best to keep the issues separate, do you think they may have done something to confuse the issues and establish a link between Iraq and 9/11?

Wow, you actually see a similarity between the confusion about Iraq's contribution to 9/11 and your witty example?

You are so clever, aren't you? I really feel humbled...

But perhaps it is better to end this, since it seems to be pretty difficult for you to be objective and critical about the current administration.

You can overlook the following links, but others with more open minds may read them if they wish and decide for themselves if the American people has perhaps been misled.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one."

-----------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

"(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks."

-----------------

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...11_challenged/

"But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq."

But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth."

---------------------

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...eda/index.html

"Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

---------------------

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...eda/index.html

"In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks."

(Nice way to confuse the people. Deny something but on the other hand suggest the opposite. Do you think this was an accident?)

---------------------

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________