No, no I did not.
What I am saying is that saying something over and over again will cause a large group of the population to likely believe it, imho.
This can be done numerous ways. What makes me laugh is that people only want to see one side of it.
Yes, pictures of Iraq/Saddam and the 9-11 attacks/Bin Laden put next to each other could very easily make people simply believe that those things are connected.
However, there's little evidence that "Bush" himself went to things like Fox, and even CNN and MSNBC, and said "put those pictures up".
That doesn't change the fact that the administration did try to tie the two together, and in part they're not wrong for that. They did poorly however, or it was reported poorly, (perhaps intentionally on both parts) in presenting it ties together in the greater "war on terror" in general and not specifically "having a hand in 9/11".
But yes, I do think that the way the media covered the early part of the Iraq War helped to make much of the American people think that Iraq had a hand in 9/11.
Similarly, the way many on the left and the media continued to say that BUSH said that Saddam/Iraq had a hand in 9/11 ALSO helped make a large amount of the population believe that Bush himself said such...something that is utterly False.
What's hillarious is that partisans like yourself love to trumpet out one example and then act completely oblivious to the other. Why? Because it doesn't fit your little agenda and script.
This Blagojevich thing doesn't surprise me either. You have those on the Right saying it, and you have those on the Left denying it. This means that either way, the American public is hearing the accusation. The American public has always been skeptical, and rightly so, of its leadership. However thanks to the lefts constant drumbeat of "government is corrupt, government is corrupt, government is corrupt" of the past, even with it being Obama I think its natural that people generally think the worst. Its much the same as in the late 90's/early 00's with sex scandals due to republicans and the Clinton scandal.
Ultimately, I think its a rather useless poll. It doesn't tell us Obama or his staff was involved. It doesn't tell us they weren't. It doesn't really tell us anything save for what the media's presentation of it likely has caused people to think. The funniest thing about it though is seeing some people either hailing this as gospel, and yet questioning the low Bush approval ratings...while at the same time some of the people that would quote Bush's approval ratings as gospel, questioning this.
The sad fact is, imho, that the majority of the population is extremely intelligently dishonest and/or lazy, and choose to listen to things that help their viewpoint/agenda and condemn things that don't and completely and utterly ignore the illogical reasoning as to why they make such decisions.