9/11 Panel Find No Link With Iraq

[Biggles]

I saw an article a while back that cited a poll in the US that suggested a significant number of the US public had linked Saddam with the 9/11 attacks. It appears the Administration did little to counter this misconception - perhaps even encouraged it.

Will the 9/11 Panel's findings impact on the November election?

Alternatively, will these revelations simply turn more people off politics and result in even fewer people turning out to vote?

I noted, following the low turn out for the European elections, a quote from a Polish source "we have had democracy for 15 years now - it is no longer a novelty, people are pretty much bored with it".

Things happen so quickly these days - it took us about 150 years to get to that stage.

[Autumn Fox]

It's quite hard to compare Polish and the EU by how many people vote.

And we just don't have too much faith in our current politicians. After some time and the social "adjustment" to it things will go smoother. And anyway, we could have had democracy from '45 but US and UK sold us out in Jalta, Teheran and Poczdam.

[Biggles]

Autumn Fox

I would say that was not picking specifically on Poland. The turnout in Scotland was little better. I was simply highlighting a general apathy towards elections and politicians that is common around the world from the US to the Urals.

[chalice]

There was a 51% turnout in Northern Ireland. Which, I think, is reasonably high.

But then, I suppose, the electorate have their own mandate when it comes to any kind of democratic process here.

You should have seen the party election broadcasts. I'm surprised anyone turned out at all. John Hume, a man I deeply respect, looked as though he was being worked from the back.

Still more seats for Sinn Fein in the south. Watch this space.

[Biggles]

I think we were around 32%, which was pretty poor really.

However, at least RKS's lot only made sixth place.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@17 June 2004 - 01:11
I think we were around 32%, which was pretty poor really.

However, at least RKS's lot only made sixth place.

I will say that my apathy toward democracy does not come my belief that my vote or my campaigning efforts cannot make a change in society, but rather that things in my world are going well, and it really doesn't make a difference who wins the next election, I will be fine.

This is a good thing.

So I would suggest that voter apathy may be related to a sense of well being, rather than a sense of futility. People deeply dissatisfied with their standard of living are very political.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes+17 June 2004 - 00:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 17 June 2004 - 00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@17 June 2004 - 01:11
I think we were around 32%, which was pretty poor really.

However, at least RKS&#39;s lot only made sixth place.

I will say that my apathy toward democracy does not come my belief that my vote or my campaigning efforts cannot make a change in society, but rather that things in my world are going well, and it really doesn&#39;t make a difference who wins the next election, I will be fine.

This is a good thing.

So I would suggest that voter apathy may be related to a sense of well being, rather than a sense of futility. People deeply dissatisfied with their standard of living are very political. [/b][/quote]
Fair point actually.

Indeed, there is a sense in which many want the politicians to do as little as possible for fear of upsetting the mechanism - effectively disengaging them from the political process further.

I note there are arguments in the US that the political processes and freedoms are being subverted under the guise of protection from terror. This seems perhaps a little overstated to me, but is there any sense in which people in the US do feel that liberties are being taken with Liberty? Which rather ties in with my original question regarding the direction taken by the current administration and the likely impact on the November election.

[Rat Faced]

Well, we really didnt have much choice to vote in Biggles...


The Extreme Right (BNP), Far Right (Tory), Right (Labour), Centre but still slightly to the Right (Lib Dem) or Green...


Scotland and Wales had a little more choice.





(For European Elections, replace BNP with Independance Party)

[hobbes]

The news that Saddam and 9/11 are not related will have no bearing on the November election.

People will simply say that if left alone Saddam would have pursued the development of nuclear and chemical weapons and would have gladly supplied them to any terrorist group to bomb America as they pleased.

His elimination will be viewed as a pre-emptive strike so that we don&#39;t have to react after the fact, as in 9/11.

Come in too late (the World Wars), you are criticised. Snuff out a glowing ember before it creates a blaze, you are criticized. America is in a "can&#39;t win" situation.

[Alex H]

On voter turn out, there has been some interesting comments made in Australia lately regarding the Midnight Oil front man Peter Garret being enlisted by the Labor party (leftish) to run in a safe Labor seat. There have been lots of questions about whether Garret has actually voted in the last 10 years - he has a "silent enrolment", meaning he is registered to vote, but doesn&#39;t list his address.

Interestingly, about 15% of Australians who are eligable to vote have never actually got around to putting themselves on the electoral roll, and that in every election about another 7% don&#39;t bther to show up at a polling booth.

So in Australia, where voting is compulsary only about 78% of people who should vote actually do&#33;


Back on topic, I think biggles is right that the Bush administration did nothing to discourage rumours about an Iraqi link with 9/11. The ambiguous and misleading statments along the lines of "We have been attacked by terrorists and Iraq is a terrorist nation", obviously didn&#39;t hurt Bush&#39;s case for a war against Iraq as he was able to point to public sentiment and say that his people were worried about being attacked by Iraq and so he acted to protect them. Which is a load of crap.

I think the biggest issue American voters need to take into account, is who lies the most and vote for the other guy.

I know a lot of people are harping on about Kerry not being consistant, but Bush on the other hand has a very consistant history of outright lies.