54% of Americans are stupid

[Gentle Giant]

Listen to an idiot long enough, and you become one...

Poll finds many still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaeda link
By Associated Press *|* August 20, 2004

More than half of Americans, 54 percent, continue to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a program to develop them before the United States invaded last year, according to a poll released Friday.

Evidence of such weapons has not been found.

Half believe Iraq was either closely linked with al-Qaida before the war (35 percent) or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on this country (15 percent).

The poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found the numbers on both questions have dropped in the face of evidence that both pre-war claims may have been false.

President Bush consistently equates the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq, though he has replaced his claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction with claims that Iraq had the "capability" of building such weapons.

Both the Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee have raised doubts about pre-war claims by the Bush administration before the Iraq war.

Seven in 10 in the poll say they believe the United States went to war in Iraq based on false assumptions. A similar number say the war in Iraq has given the United States a worse image in the world.

A majority, 55 percent, say they don't think the war in Iraq will result in greater peace and stability in the Mideast. In various polls, people have been evenly split on whether the war in Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do -- a sharp drop from last winter.

The poll of 733 adults was conducted by Knowledge Networks from Aug. 5-11 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.*

[Root Doctor]

Actually, this is a pretty heartening statistic. 79% think the earth is flat.

[crawjo]

Well, consider me an idiot. I DO think that Iraq either had WMDS or had a program to develop them. And I didn't reach that conclusion by listening to George Bush.

[tippy]

Think of it like this: 48% of us are not.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Well, consider me an idiot. I DO think that Iraq either had WMDS or had a program to develop them. And I didn't reach that conclusion by listening to George Bush.

How DID you reach it?

[crawjo]

Logic. There is no question that Iraq had WMDs in the past, since they used them. So, in order to believe that they no longer had any WMDs, I have to believe that the inspections and the Gulf War wiped ALL of them out. That seems hard for me to believe. If that is the case, then why wouldn't Hussein simply have given the inspectors unfettered access to palaces, etc? Why would he kick them out in '98?

Also, why would a country with no WMD program try to purchase nuclear material from the North Koreans? Why would they be actively seeking enriched uranium?

What seems far more likely to me is that the weapons were moved out of the country, perhaps to Syria. This would have been extremely easy to do, since there was a period of several months in which it was clear the U.S. was going to invade. The Ba'athists surely knew that they could not withstand a direct invasion by U.S. forces. What was their best bet for victory? To fight a guerrilla war, which they did, and to weaken support for the war at home, which has also happened. Getting rid of the WMDs would be one major way to weaken support, since it was the major rationale for fighting the war.

As it stands, I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that there were no WMDs. But if there were, now we are really fucked, because they are out there somewhere, completely unaccounted for, and liable to be handed over to any terrorist group with an inclination to use them.

[sonic1]

As much as I don't believe Bush on anything he says, what the fuck would any of us really know about Iraq? None of us live there. None of us are involved in inspections. I know I am guilty of having big opinions about the world, much of which I have not visited. But I am going to say here that it is possible that Iraq still may have those weapons. Now whether that means we should have stuck our fingers in the cookie jar is another thing. I think Iraq was an aging lion, and whatever program they must have had, if they really had one, it must not have been very significant if an administration so bent on proving such has not found significant evidence. Not more than any other rouge nation out there.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by sonic1

Not more than any other rouge nation out there.

It's those magenta nations about which you need to worry.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by tippy

Think of it like this: 48% of us are not.

I hope it's not the 46% of us than can subtract 54 from 100. ;-)

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by crawjo

If that is the case, then why wouldn't Hussein simply have given the inspectors unfettered access to palaces, etc? Why would he kick them out in '98?

It's been suggested that Hussein pretended to have WMDs in order to maintain his shaky grasp on the country. Our covert actions to destabilize Iraq in the '90s were pretty successful.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Well, consider me an idiot.

No problem.

[tippy]

2% margin, Tan.

[Chris D]

Originally Posted by crawjo

. If that is the case, then why wouldn't Hussein simply have given the inspectors unfettered access to palaces, etc? Why would he kick them out in '98?

crawjo, you repeat a common myth that Hussein "kicked out" inspectors in '98. This is from FAIR, which has its own bias, but the point is valid and easily proven.

1. "But as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare to return to Iraq for the first time since Saddam kicked them out in 1998, the U.S. faces a delicate balancing act: transforming the international consensus for disarmament into a consensus for war." --Randall Pinkston, CBS Evening News (11/9/02).

One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or "expelled" (www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html). The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" --(Washington Post, 12/18/98).

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Also what about the inspectors who were let back into Iraq prior to the current war? The Adminstration complained about their reports stating they weren't finding weapons. By then I think the rationale went like this: "Well we've got all these troops over there, we'd better invade before it gets too hot..." or something like that.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by tippy

Think of it like this: 48% of us are not.

Don't think I didn't enjoy this, tippy.

No stranger to having his best material ignored (although Tanager acknowledged it already),
Larry

[LennyH]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Well, consider me an idiot. I DO think that Iraq either had WMDS or had a program to develop them. And I didn't reach that conclusion by listening to George Bush.

To me, it's impossible to argue about this without clarification of terms.

What constitutes weapons of mass destruction? Do chemical weapons count? Even though we supposedly haven't found any, I believe they are there somewhere. Either way, the distinction has to be made between just having them and being able to use them against the US. Iraq has no missles that could carry them to the US and there was never any evidence, that I know of, that suggested they planned to attack us on US soil.

What does it take to have a nuclear weapons program? If some nuclear scientist wrote a bunch of papers on how they might go about creating nuclear weapons would that be a "program"? If so, than they most certainly had a program. Would they need to posses enriched uranium? Would they have to be X years away from completing a bomb? To me it boils down to weather they would actually have a bomb in the next few years and whether they'd be able to use them against us.

Call me nuts, but I'm not nearly as scared at the prospect of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc. having nuclear weapons as I am about the loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. I'm worried about people who have no country to lose. Anybody who uses a nuke on anyone else loses their country and it's not just the US they would have to worry about. I don't think any of those crazy foreign leaders doubt that for one second.

I don't know that the 54% means much when we're using such broad terms.

[Pete C]

I don't need Iraq to tell me how many stupid people there are in the U.S.

"Most Americans, however, believe creationism should be taught along with evolution. According to a June 1996 Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans think public schools should teach creationism. When asked if creationism should be taught as a balance to evolution and secular humanism, that number rose to 70 percent of Americans, Concerned Women for America reported."

http://www.aclj.org/news/education/020919_georgia.asp

"More than four-in-ten Americans (44 percent) believe that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people, while a substantial minority (36 percent) thinks that the modern state of Israel is a "fulfillment of the biblical prophesy about the second coming of Jesus.""

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=133-07242003

[clinthopson]

Something like 75% believe there are angels.

[walto]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Something like 75% believe there are angels.

Wait, you mean......




Never mind.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Something like 75% believe there are angels.

They do exist. They play real close to where you live, Clint

[Gordon B]

83% of baseball fans think they can identify "clutch" hitters who rise to the occasion in when the game is on the line.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Pete C

No problem.

Thanks for the compliment.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

83% of baseball fans think they can identify "clutch" hitters who rise to the occasion in when the game is on the line.

Yet only 4% of us actually *can.*

Sly,
Larry

[crawjo]

About Saddam kicking out the inspectors: I believe the way it went down was that the inspectors were becoming frustrated by Saddam refusing to grant them access to certain sites. That is what precipitated the bombing campaign which caused the inspectors to leave the country.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by crawjo

About Saddam kicking out the inspectors: I believe the way it went down was that the inspectors were becoming frustrated by Saddam refusing to grant them access to certain sites. That is what precipitated the bombing campaign which caused the inspectors to leave the country.

Assuming the events are simple as that description, do you think that's the same thing as Hussein kicking out the inspectors?

[crawjo]

Okay, okay...how about we say that he "frustrated the inspections process"?

Originally Posted by crawjo

About Saddam kicking out the inspectors: I believe the way it went down was that the inspectors were becoming frustrated by Saddam refusing to grant them access to certain sites. That is what precipitated the bombing campaign which caused the inspectors to leave the country.

dingdingdingdingding..............

I wonder how many who are participating in this thread even read Butler's final report.

[Deke]

Logic's an odd thing. Logic told me that Saddam didn't have any WoMD, or at least, not of the ferocity Bush and Blair were making out. Between them they claimed that these weapons could be launched to us, from Iraq, and that they were ready for use within 90 minutes. Even before the war, these claims were being railed back. Logic therefore told me that they were bullshit. Then we went in, and 90 minutes later I knew they were bullshit. I suspect Bush and Blair already knew they were bullshit, or we wouldn't have gone in.

[crawjo]

I don't recall Bush or Blair ever making the claim that Iraq had the capability to strike the West with WMDs in 90 minutes. That would require Iraq to possess ICBMs, and I've never seen anyone suggest that they have, or were ever even close to having, that sort of technology.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I don't recall Bush or Blair ever making the claim that Iraq had the capability to strike the West with WMDs in 90 minutes. That would require Iraq to possess ICBMs, and I've never seen anyone suggest that they have, or were ever even close to having, that sort of technology.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory: From October 7, 2002, President George W. Bush:

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

-30-

NEXT!