I have to object on two grounds. (1) It's not accepted. For example, this guy Finnegan was just mentioning how millions of people believe Saddam had a role in 9-11. (2) It's not a fact. There is no way to prove that Saddam had no role in the 9-11 attacks. Oh, and (3) Define WMD.
No, that is only my personal belief. Most of us have become too stupid for effective self-governance precisely because we REFUSE to think for ourselves. That abdication of civic responsibility is a stupid act. But its revealing that you reflexively grab the "liberal elite" shield instead of challenging the content of the allegation. Why do 69%, a disproportionate number of whom describe themselves as conservative, claim that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 in the absence of any objective evidence suggesting causal connection and one explicit refutation by King George? Divine guidance? Laziness? Pride? Whatever the exact reasons, my PERSONAL belief is that "stupidity" is a common element. If you take exception with my PERSONAL opinion on this SPECIFIC issue, please address it accordingly instead on resorting to the "liberal elite" card, whatever the hell that is.
Read the Oct. 2, 2003 report from The Program on International Policy Attitudes: http://www.pipa.org This isn't the only poll BTW, the trend is common in all major polls conducted on Iraq and September 11. Well, if to be a fact something has to be proved negatively than there are very few facts in the world today. It's pratically impossible to prove a negative, that's why science and the legal profession (for the most part) look to prove positive assertions. For example, it would be very difficult thing to prove to me that you aren't a pedophile or a witch. Hell, using that arguement you really can't definately prove that Saddam is not hanging out with three-breasted Venusian women on their mother-ship on the dark side of the moon. There is no evidence whatsoever that Al Qaeda had any links with the Iraqi regime. There is strong evidence however, that the attacks on Sept. 11 were carried out by Al Qaeda. This seems to be logically problematic if you want to link Saddam to 9/11. Lets see... nuclear (or should I say nu-cu-lar), biological, and chemical weapons. Production of anthrax spores, botulinum, plague, smallpox etc. for weponization. Productoin of mustard gas, phosgene, VX, sarin, Uranium 235, and Plutonium. Weponization of the above for possible use against civilians or military targets. Deployment of such weapons in the field. Any of these conditions would be enough to justify saying that Saddam had WMD. However I don't consider finding one moldy old test tube of anthrax spores dating from pre-1991 (probably provided to Iraq from the US before 1990) in an old fridge in the university proof positive that Saddam had WMD after Desert Storm. Unfortunately none of this criteria has been met. They haven't even found the moldy tube of spores. Intent is irrelevant, saying that Saddam wanted to develop WMD is meaningless. We already knew that, hence the sanctions and inspectors. Hell, if it was for intent anyone could be guilty. I admit taht I would like to have a thermonuclear warhead to paint in cool colors and put it in the corner as a conversation peice. Does that impy that I will get one? I doubt it.
Fixed your post. I don't think most Americans are stupid, they just don't have the opportunity to follow the news 24/7, and if it doesn't affect their pocketbook or their family, they aren't going to work too hard to follow it. Thus, they live on soundbites and don't really gather enough information to understand and act on an issue. It's like a game of telephone and the messages that wind up in the American brain are diluted by the myriad of news sources, the flaky nature of reporting facts (BREAKING NEWS, BREAKING NEWS) and instead, the reporting of scenarios and opinions, and the difficult choice between Bounce and Snuggle for a fabric softener.