realcities.com/mld/krwashing … tstory.jsp
According to the above recent poll, 57% of Americans still believe Iraq was working closely with al-Quaida, while over 50% still believe that Iraq’s WMD programs and capabilities were accurately assessed before the war.
Who the hell are these people? Is there anyone in this forum amongst that 57% or 50%, or are there people in this forum who know people who are?
Do you know what the polling questions were? A lot of insight can be gained once you know what they asked to get those results.
Or will can just believe the USA is full of redneck, hicks, and moonshiners. Instead of well informed individuals that usually prefer isolationist policies.
The full results and questionnaires are here: pipa.org/
[quote]On the other hand, a factor that did appear to be strikingly influential was perceptions of
world public opinion on the war with Iraq. Despite polling showing that the majority of
world public opinion is opposed to the US war with Iraq, only 41% were aware that this
is the case. A 59% majority was unaware of this, with 21% saying that a majority of
world public opinion favored the US having gone to war, and 38% saying
ac_dropout,
I would submit that the issues is not so much about isolationism as it is about basic understanding of world events.
A reasonably well-informed isolationist would still be able to grasp the understanding that Iraq was not working intimately with al-Quaida and that Iraq did not have the WMD capabilities that they were alleged to have beffore the war.
How? How would anyone know whether or not Saddam was cooperating or contemplating cooperation with al Qaeda prior to the war? And given that just about everyone concluded that Saddam DID have WMD prior to the war, how is it that you conclude that a well-informed individual would grasp the understanding that Iraq didn’t have WMD prior to the war?
One thing that has been stated but that many of you critical of US intelligence re WMD and the decision to invade Iraq seem, IMO, to refuse to consider, is the fact that in nearly every case of intelligence estimates made by any intelligence agency prior to the invasion of Iraq, the world’s intelligence agencies substantially UNDERESTIMATED the amount of weaponry and or material that a subject actually possessed.
Thus, when Bush was provided intelligence estimates, he looked at some that indicated little or no WMD, and some that indicated substantial amounts of WMD.
Given that intelligence estimates previously had so frequently been substantially underestimated, and the fact that Bush was forced to look at a worst case situation, I fail to see how the Bushwackers have made any case at all regarding Bush’s decision to invade Iraq…
… and that only accounts for the part of the decision made in consideration of the WMD issue… there were and are, however, other reasons, valid on their own, for invading Iraq and ousting Saddam.
Tigerman,
I think you may have answered my question for me.
Perhaps the “57 percent of Americans [who] continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave “substantial support” to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship”, like you, misread the questions and thought that they were being asked instead if they had at any time in the past believed the above to be true.
And perhaps over 50% of the respondents also thought that they were being asked about their past perceptions of Iraq’s WMD capabilities rather than what they may now think based upon the information that is out there today.
Thus, i am greatly relieved to think that rather than being misinformed, all those people are perhaps just semi-literate…
[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“abekonge”]Tigerman,
I think you may have answered my question for me.
Thus, I am greatly relieved to think that rather than being misinformed, all those people are perhaps just semi-literate…[/quote]
You’re right… I didn’t read your statements carefully enough. I guess I didn’t think what you had to say was really important. My bad.[/quote]
Once again we have a situation where both sides of the debate basically agree on the relevant facts, and simply disagree as to how to weigh the facts when deciding which is most important.
On the one hand…
We see abekonge saying “Tigerman you misread my post – what I was saying that WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT we should all be able to agree that Saddam had no WMD.”
So far tigerman has not disagreed with this.
On the other hand…
We have tigerman saying “WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT it remains the case that viritually every intelligence agency in the world (including that of France, Germany, and yes… Iraq) thought that Saddam did have WMD… so given the information available at the time, is it not true that Bush made the prudent decision?”
So far abekonge not disagreed with this.
So at this point we, each of us, has to decide which is more a more important lesson to take from the agreed facts:
[b]Abekonge’s Point:
(a) That Bush is not, in fact, smarter than his advisors, the CIA, Saddam Hussein and the French, British, Russian and German intelligence agencies.[/b] (a point with which neither tigerman nor abekonge has yet to take issue)
or
[b]Tigerman’s Point:
(b) That Bush made the right decision based on the facts available to him at the time.[/b] (a point with which neither tigerman nor abekonge has yet to take issue)
Obviously everyone will decide for themselves wich point is more relevant/interesting/persuasive. But if I were a betting man – I would wager that most people already knew point (a) (that Bush wasn’t smarter than all of the world’s intelligence agencies combined).
But then again what do I know – perhaps people really did think (prior to abekkonge’s post) that George W. Bush was omnicient, that he was possessed of more knowledge than the rest of the world combined. In other words, perhaps tigerman is dead wrong, and abekonge is pointing out something truly novel here…
I guess we will each just have to decide for ourselves.
44% of Americans believe God created mankind within the past 10,000 years. Only 7% of British people believe that. (1991 survey)
So, it has been shown (possibly) that there are quite a few Americans that believe some ideas that are really quite difficult to believe.
However, it hasn’t been illustrated in a convincing way that the US made a bad decision to invade Iraq.
I don’t care if 100% of all Americans believe in the Easter Bunny. Unless you can present a good argument as to why Bush and the US were wrong to invade Iraq and oust Saddam and his regime, you aren’t saying anything.
I used to think so but the longer I am here, the more I think FAT rednecks, hicks and moonshiners. I must have been here too long but we are starting to seem like a grotesquely large ethnic group.
Yes. Indeed there was conflicting intelligence. However, none of the intelligence that indicated that Iraq had less or no WMD was any more verifiable than was the intelligence that indicated that Iraq did possess WMD.
Moreover, nearly all of the intelliegnce estimates prior to the invasion of Iraq had substantially underestimated the amount of WMD and or materials and or progress in programs aimed at creating or obtaining WMD.
Thus, when Bush was presented with such conflicting intelligence, he had to make a choice as to which intelligence to act upon.
Had he acted on the intelligence that indicated that Iraq posed less of a threat or no threat, then Saddam would likely still be in power today. That would not be a good thing. Had Bush acted on this intelligence and had this intelligence been wrong, the situation would not be desirable.
Conversely, Bush acted on the intelligence that indicated that Iraq possessed WMD and thus posed an increasing threat. Bush acted on this intelligence, which now seems might have been incorrect. What has been the result? Saddam Hussein has been ousted and he will never be able to seek to create or obtain WMD and Iraq has an opportunity to reform. Seems a fairly good result. IMO.
And again… the issue of WMD was only one reason for invading Iraq. Given that the result of invading Iraq has been good and hopefully the future will be much better, the issue of whether or not Saddam’s Iraq possessed WMD should never have been given so much weight… IMO. IMO, Bush erred in emphasizing the WMD issue…, but I can only conclude that he really believed the intelligence that indicated Iraq did possess WMD.
Bush may have been wrong about the WMD claim. But good analysis involves not only an analysis of the conflicting and then unverifiable intelligence, but also an analysis of what would be the result of acting on intelligence that was not correct. IMO, Bush reasonably relied on one intelligence over another, and the result has been good, despite the apparent poor quality of the intelligence upon which he relied.
Saddam only allowed inspectors to return when the US threatened invasion. And even then, he did NOT cooperate as he was required to do. Even Blix stated as much.
At some point, the deadline had to actually be a deadline.
[quote=“Juba”]44% of Americans believe God created mankind within the past 10,000 years. Only 7% of British people believe that. (1991 survey)
[/quote]
it would be interesting to see other surveys based on religion
topics such as:
number of filipinos who still believe in virgin birth
number of indians who believe in reincarnation
number of chinese who believe in ghosts
number of egyptians who believe that they will be presented with virgins in heaven if they kill some westerners.
oh, it seems those rational germans aren’t immune from beliving stupid things, either:
news24.com/News24/World/News … 39,00.html
19% of germans(and 30% under age 30) believe bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
[quote=“tigerman”]Yes. Indeed there was conflicting intelligence. However, none of the intelligence that indicated that Iraq had less or no WMD was any more verifiable than was the intelligence that indicated that Iraq did possess WMD.
Moreover, nearly all of the intelliegnce estimates prior to the invasion of Iraq had substantially underestimated the amount of WMD and or materials and or progress in programs aimed at creating or obtaining WMD.
Thus, when Bush was presented with such conflicting intelligence, he had to make a choice as to which intelligence to act upon.[/quote]
That is just completely wrong.
Have you not noticed that no one in the administration is going that route? The reason why they aren’t is that they know that doing so would lead to ever-increasing focus on the fact that they did doctor the intelligence.
But the fact is that he allowed them to return, and a reinstated inspection program, even without full cooperation, would have been able to keep limits on any WMD program and would have allowed for more specific verifcation of whether any such capablities existed.
There’s an old joke about overly zealous police in action when raiding a location where suspects are hiding. “SLAM! (as the door is broken open) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Freeze and put your hands up!”
Your attitude seems to match those mocked in that joke. Why exactly was it a good thing to attack first and search later when the way was open to search first?
I’m rather disturbed by the fact that you seem to feel that the situation in Iraq right now is good, and I’m not sure what you feel were other, better reasons for invading Iraq besides the WMD threat.
[quote=“abekonge”][quote=“tigerman”]Yes. Indeed there was conflicting intelligence. However, none of the intelligence that indicated that Iraq had less or no WMD was any more verifiable than was the intelligence that indicated that Iraq did possess WMD.
Moreover, nearly all of the intelliegnce estimates prior to the invasion of Iraq had substantially underestimated the amount of WMD and or materials and or progress in programs aimed at creating or obtaining WMD.
Thus, when Bush was presented with such conflicting intelligence, he had to make a choice as to which intelligence to act upon.[/quote]
That is just completely wrong.
Have you not noticed that no one in the administration is going that route? The reason why they aren’t is that they know that doing so would lead to ever-increasing focus on the fact that they did doctor the intelligence.[/quote]
Can you back up your claim with p-r-o-o-f?
A blast from the past:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
[quote=“abekonge”]That is just completely wrong.
Have you not noticed that no one in the administration is going that route? The reason why they aren’t is that they know that doing so would lead to ever-increasing focus on the fact that they did doctor the intelligence.[/quote]
Really? Do you have proof that Bush doctored the intelligence?
He allowed them to return. But you do NOT know that the new inspections would have been able to keep limits on Saddam’s WMD program (and we were not seeking to limit him, we were seeking to completely restrict him). After 12 years, I see NO reason that Saddam should have been permitted yet more time. Time was up. Good riddance.
[quote=“abekonge”]There’s an old joke about overly zealous police in action when raiding a location where suspects are hiding. “SLAM! (as the door is broken open) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Freeze and put your hands up!”
Your attitude seems to match those mocked in that joke. Why exactly was it a good thing to attack first and search later when the way was open to search first?[/quote]
Your joke doesn’t apply to this situation. As has been stated again and again, Saddam was obliged to prove that he didn’t have WMD and he was obliged to account for the disposal of WMD that he had possessed previously. He was obliged to do so 13 years ago. The US was NOT obliged to prove that Saddam had WMD.
This isn’t really that difficult to understand… yet I have not seen any of you who oppose the invasion acknowledge this fact.
All things are relative. I believe that the current situation in Iraq is good compared to the situation in Iraq under Saddam. Even with the current problems in Iraq, there is hope for a better future. What hope existed for the Iraqis under Saddam?
In any event, the feeling is, I assure you, mutual. I am rather disturbed that you think, I suppose, that Iraq was better off with Saddam and his gruesome twosome sons ruling iron-fisted over the Iraqis. I am rather disturbed that you cannot acknowledge, that the Middle East needs to be reformed and that the best way to begin such reform was to take out Saddam and first reform Iraq. I’m a little disturbed that you don’t seem to understand that despite no WMD being found in Iraq, plenty of evidence was found that Iraq maintained the ability and apparent intent to restart such programs once the heat was off. I’m a little disturbed that all of this isn’t obvious to you.
I mean, after all, you stated in the Taiwan Politics forum that you know the unstated US policy re Taiwan… I would think that with such powers you could easily see the stated US policy in Iraq and the Middle East.
You can spin it however you want. To me it is a case of shoot first, make up reasons afterward. Before the attack it all WMD WMD WMD. And now it’s all poor intelligence poor intelligence poor intelligence. We knew that when he was elected though.
I’m pissed that so many US servicemen and women had to die to make a better life for the Iraqis. That’s not Bush’s job. It’s a shame that the apologists have hoodwinked so many people into believing their lies.
Its not spin unless you can illustrate where Bush lied.
I don’t know how you can get to that conclusion. Did Iraq agree to a cease-fire 13 years ago? Yes. Did Iraq admit to possession of certain amounts of WMD? Yes. Did Iraq account for the disposal of all amounts of WMD that it admitted possessing? No. Was Iraq obligated by the terms of the cease fire agreement to cooperate completely and immediately 13 years ago? Yes. Did Iraq comply with the tems of the cease-fire agreement? No. Did Bush believe that Iraq possessed WMD? Yes. Was the US obligated to prove that Iraq possessed WMD? No.
Where is the spin?
I’m pissed too… but the fact is, Americans have been dying as a result of terrorist acts for the past two decades, and on 911, the terrorists hit us at home. It is Bush’s job to make the US secure for Americans… and if that means taking the war to the home turf of the terrorists and forcing reform on their backward-assed governments, then I am in favor of that. The fact that the Iraqis and other peoples of that region will hopefully get better lives in the future is a side benefit to them. After all, don’t the cynics usually argue that the US only acts in its best interest?
Again, if you want to accuse Bush of lying, please provide proof of the same.
[quote=“tigerman”]I don’t know how you can get to that conclusion. Did Iraq agree to a cease-fire 13 years ago? Yes. Did Iraq admit to possession of certain amounts of WMD? Yes. Did Iraq account for the disposal of all amounts of WMD that it admitted possessing? No. Was Iraq obligated by the terms of the cease fire agreement to cooperate completely and immediately 13 years ago? Yes. Did Iraq comply with the tems of the cease-fire agreement? No. Did Bush believe that Iraq possessed WMD? Yes. Was the US obligated to prove that Iraq possessed WMD? No.
Where is the spin?[/quote]
Was Iraq a threat to use WMD? No. Did Iraq have a huge stockpile of WMD? No. Was Iraq manufacturing WMD? No. Was Iraq resposible for the 911 attack? No. Did they help? No. Has Bush and company completely changed their tune about why we attacked? Yes.
[quote=“Richardm”][quote=“tigerman”]I don’t know how you can get to that conclusion. Did Iraq agree to a cease-fire 13 years ago? Yes. Did Iraq admit to possession of certain amounts of WMD? Yes. Did Iraq account for the disposal of all amounts of WMD that it admitted possessing? No. Was Iraq obligated by the terms of the cease fire agreement to cooperate completely and immediately 13 years ago? Yes. Did Iraq comply with the tems of the cease-fire agreement? No. Did Bush believe that Iraq possessed WMD? Yes. Was the US obligated to prove that Iraq possessed WMD? No.
Where is the spin?[/quote]
Was Iraq a threat to use WMD? No. Did Iraq have a huge stockpile of WMD? No. Was Iraq manufacturing WMD? No. Was Iraq resposible for the 911 attack? No. Did they help? No. Has Bush and company completely changed their tune about why we attacked? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t see any spin. I see you changing the goal posts.
BF posted a list of statements made by Democrats over the past several years. Each of them believed that Iraq possessed WMD.
You apparently are content to ignore the fact that the US was NOT obligated to prove that Iraq possessed WMD. In fact, it was the other way around… Iraq was obligated to prove that it hadn’t WMD in its possession.
The only way to ascertain whether Iraq did or didn’t possess WMD, due to Saddam’s refusal to cooperate as required, was to invade and verify.
Bush explained his policy regarding Iraq, terrorists and the entire Middle East well before the invasion. Thus, if you didn’t know the other reasons for the invasion of Iraq until now… well, who’s fault is that?