Here's how it works.
It is known (in fact you study this directly in marketing, PR advertising, etc.) how people listen to spoken words and accept visual images. People have good careers manipulating this knowledge to sell everything from feminine deodorant to a new car to a politician.
In PR you never lie, but, like a lawyer bringing up the rape victim's sexual history, you can create implications. I doubt Bush ever said directly: “Saddam Hussein is responsible for 9/11.” I equally doubt that he went out of his way to convince anyone before the invasion that this was not the case. And, at the time, you could see the creation of Iraq as the No.1 terrorist state in the region, a direct and active supporter of al Queda (which did attack the US on 9/11 - but look at who its major supporters in the region actually are). Did Iraq have connections to terrorist organizations? Probably at some levels but in a more limited fashion than perhaps a dozen countries we decided to put further down the list. So why Iraq? Was it lying to imply a stronger link? That’s where you can have some debate. Was there a stronger link? Evidence suggests not. Was this known at the time? A better question would be did the administration really want to know. Would his WMD have been an issue had they been found? Certainly to Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia but not to downtown NY, IMO. Here are a few functional examples of how you imply linkage and connect SH to al Queda and 9/11.
And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/
See, here he doesn’t state specifically that Saddam was behind 9/11. But, most people don’t listen that carefully. This is well known and commonly used in PR.
"The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
"We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/
Some more of the same.
Reiterating the distinction between contacts and actual collaboration on the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney said some news media had blurred that distinction and reported the administration was directly tying the attacks to Saddam.
"The press is, with all due respect there are exceptions, often times lazy, often simply reports what someone else in the press says without doing their homework," Cheney said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/
Cheney is absolutely accurate here. Of course, this isn’t something that is new -- it is something that has been easy to manipulate for decades. It leaves out similar comments that could be directed at the general population.
This is how the game is played. Both sides play it. Getting their policy directives supported is more important than a scholarly level of accuracy or an accurate understanding of the issue by the public. It’s a lot closer to the legal concepts behind our judicial system than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Win at any cost, but don’t technically cross the line.
They know how you and I think, what our hot buttons are, what messages are needed to push those buttons, how susceptible we are to certain messages and how resistant we are to alternative messages. I had some ethical qualms about PR when I worked in the field, but I’m starting to think that people deserve what they get and It’s better to go where the money is than be a starving trade journalist.
Charon
