How gullible? Iraq & 9/11

[Bucky]

According to last week's Newsweek Poll, the American people aren't quite so gullible as we were saying before. In recent weeks we've been hearing the numbers that 70% of the public thinks Iraq was tied to the WTC/Pentagon attacks.

That number got bandied about quite a lot and used (justifiably) to damn the administration for crapping on the truth and misleading the public. But if 70% of the electorate falls for such nonsense, that would be pretty disheartening--it would mean our job next year is near impossible.

The truth is that only a very large percentage, rather than a great majority, of the public is being fooled. Forget the 70% figure; the real figure is only 47% are buying Bush's carefully scripted lies. Here's the actual Newsweek finding:

(9/19/03)
"Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?"

Was - 47% | Was Not - 37% | Don't Know - 16%

[Democrats unite]

1. Thats the media for you.

eom

[dbt]

2. Did my own poll on the subject back in March

(Use ta work for TV station as webmaster until bu$h freed me from the tyranny of a job...)

Yes, it was unscientific and reflected only the opinions of those who chose to participate and was presented purely for entertainment purposes and yada yada, but it showed that 75 percent of respondents bought the lie.

What made the results truly perplexing was the fact that, in a poll a few days earlier, the majority of respondents correctly identified the number of 9/11 hijackers as being zero.

This indicated to me that my fellow Arkies wanted to follow bu$h over the cliff just because somebody needed to die.

:scared:
dbt

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Not perplexing

Their view could easily be that Saddam persuaded non-Iraqis to do it, and funded them.

Maybe the difference in poll numbers is due to the answer choices: The Washington Post poll (Aug 7-11) had, as choices to the supposition 'Saddam was personally involved', 'very likely', somewhat likely', 'not likely', 'not at all', and 'no opinion'. The Newsweek poll had the supposition 'Saddam's regime was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out', and the choices 'was', 'was not', and 'don't know'. The WP 69% was the total of 'very likely' and 'somewhat likely'. If you could quantify your opinion of the likelihood at, say, 30%, you might call that 'somewhat likely', but then respond 'was not' to the Newsweek question.

The media may gloss over differences like these, but I bet we do too. This is the first time I looked up the exact Washington Post question. Had everyone else done that already?