The New York Times‘s Janet Elder writes a column ‘on polling,’ and reveals a surprising finding: Americans seem to regard the Iraq war as a part of the war on terror:
Elder chooses an interesting phrase to begin her piece ‘The language used to talk about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks…’ She makes it sound as if the listener is an unwitting victim of imprecise language, rather than someone who has listened to arguments on both sides and decided which one is correct–she offers no evidence either way. The phrase ‘multi-headed hydra’ is amusing, but arguably apt. Saddam Hussein funded terrorism against the west and gave shelter to al Qaeda. While the New York Times may not like it, it is reasonable for Americans to regard him and Osama bin Laden as part of the same problem. That determination is part of the reason the United States–along with dozens of allies–elected to end Saddam’s dictatorship and replace it with a representative government. Why is this a point of debate? What makes it difficult to understand? Elder gives the game away in the next few paragraphs:
