Fooling Some of the People

Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool some of the people some of the time, and even all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.” The White House is having great success at fooling some of the people.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, one of the most ubiquitous propaganda lines used by the Administration was that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were bosom buddies. Ground into our brains with endless insinuation, we were indoctrinated to believe that by invading Iraq, we were striking back against the people who attacked us on 9/11, that it was but one battle in the “war on terror,” that there was no difference between the secular Hussein and the Islamist bin Laden. It was so spectacularly successful that even American troops sent to Iraq fell for it, as shown by the examples of “this is for 9/11” comments heard from more than one soldier.

Of course, it wasn’t true. Iraq and al Qaeda were well known to loathe each other and each saw the other as mortal enemies. The Administration, having been told as such by CIA and the State Department, knew this full well, but went right on saying otherwise. After all, the American people were far more likely to support an unprovoked invasion of a country which didn’t attack us if they thought they were connected to those who did, and if they believed Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11, so much the better.

We now have more proof on just how successful this misinformation campaign was. The Program in International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland just released the results of a study showing that 37% of the American people believe that Hussein gave “substantial support to al Qaeda” with another 20% believing that he was “directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks.” Additionally, 45% believe that “clear evidence” was found linking Hussein and al Qaeda. None of these are even remotely true, but that didn’t stop the Administration from touting them anyway.

When a similar study was published earlier this year, the White House’s response was the same as their reaction to anything they don’t like – they simply ignored it and plowed ahead saying the same thing. Even in last week’s press conference, President Bush claimed that al Qaeda “lost an ally in Baghdad” when Iraq was invaded.

Just how divorced from reality is the White House? We all know that they tend to look at everything through rose-tinted glasses – for example, the Administration’s ludicrous insistence that the ongoing carnage in Iraq is actually a sign of success. (So if everyone is killed, does that mean we win?) Willfully ignoring repeatedly established fact, however, is very different. Numerous children’s stories say that if you believe something hard enough and long enough, it happens. So, apparently, does the White House.

The sheer gall in constantly rolling out the same rhetoric which has already been shown to be false is breathtaking, and also rather unsettling. If President Bush sincerely believes in a nonexistent Hussein-bin Laden connection despite all the evidence against it, one wonders what else he believes. Then again, he was quoted in Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack as refusing to consult his father (the first President Bush) on the matter of Iraq, saying that “He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice...there’s a higher Father that I appeal to.” Sounds like we now have a governmental decision-making process literally based on blind faith rather than reason and experience.

On the other hand, Bush et al may simply be having a good laugh at our expense, popping champagne corks in the Oval Office and celebrating their success in having put such a whopper over on the American public.

I’m not sure which one is scarier.