Bush Supporters: Misinformed or Ignoring the Truth?

[one_raven]

...or burying their heads in the sand?

According to a study performed by The Program on International Policy Attitudes more than half of Bush supporters STILL believe that, among other things:
1.) Iraq had WMD (or a major program) before we attacked them (72%! )
2.) We had proof of these WMD
3.) Iraq had and has verifyable ties to al Qaeda
4.) Bush administration is STILL claiming this to be true

The Bush administration and FOX News don't even claim these things anymore.
They have been forced to acknowledge the truth, but the supporters still don't.

Furthermore, the attack of Iraq was justified because of the above "facts", and if they weren't true, then the majority of Bush supporters would not think the war was justified.
My GOD!

A quote from the article:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

They also incorrectly believe that the majority of the rest of the world's population support the war and favor Bush for re-election!

I was floored when I heard this!
What's the story?

Are they really that misinformed?
Is the Bush spin machine THAT effective?
Do they simply have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to accept the truth because they don't want to?

If people want to vote for Bush, then that's fine, it is their right, and their political ideals may simply differ from mine.
But to be voting for Bush while being THAT woefully misinformed should be a crime!
Not only is it sad that you may actually be voting for something you may not want to (since most of them base their approval of the attack on falsehoods) but the rest of us may have to end up paying the price for that ignorance.

I am livid about this!

 

[Mazuz]

It is a crime what the media is doing. I have lived in CA all my life (until now) and so I didn't really realize the problem most of the rest of the country has getting fairly objective news opinions. Every radio station I could find in my car, dozens and dozens of them, was utter propaganda, except for a couple that wouldn't mention anything controversial at all. The shows were like religious sermons written by a team of expert lawyers (to spin the facts) and psychologists (to know what works on people).

I listened to this programming for 3 days strait on every radio station I could find only because I thought it was educational to be exposed to it, it has changed me. For 24/7 these people are being bombarded by one side of the story, a completely dishonest side. It is just being pounded down their throats. Every little thing is spun to fit this imaginary point of view. They are told if you are a good hard working decent person these are your beliefs. These are the beliefs of everyone in your community. If you have any of X opinions you are a fraud. You have to be convicted of your beliefs (the ones we just gave you) or you are a bad person of some kind. These are overriding points on every radio station. I heard one radio say conservatives believe in God and liberals believe in nothing.. I wanted to call in but all the callers sounded like props that would fit right into the shows argument and line of reasons and at just the right times. They used the term "fact" a lot, and I right away I learned that when they would say that word that meant they were lying. The facts are we did find WMD's and Iraq did support the 911 attack etc etc.

I am simplifying here, believe me it is ALOT worse, they really do a job on these people. I don't blame these people so much for how they feel and what there opinions are after being exposed to what they are immersed in, it is very sad and very scary.

 

[member 5645]

1.) Iraq had WMD (or a major program) before we attacked them (72%! )

You may be 'livid about this', but you are equally uninformed if you don't understand why people believe that Iraq had WMD before we went in.
In fact, I will say that those who believe Iraq DIDN'T have WMD before we went are the uninformed.

 

[kat]

Section 3 of the Duelfer report outlines WMD found after our arrival. So, perhaps the reports questions and results aren't being portrayed accurately...perhaps it's a matter of degrees of truth...or as Kerry would put it nuance...
BTW One Raven...have you read the full 9-11 and Duelfer reports or are you just relying on others to tell you what their conclusions are?

 

[Gokul43201]

The Duelfer Report says that there was no ACTIVE PROGRAM for manufacturing WMDs. It also claims that there is no evidence of any new WMDs (made or bought) after Desert Storm. The only WMDs found are from old stockpiles; portions hidden here or there, of the size that may be found in at least a dozen other countries.

 

[Gokul43201]

Nearly half (about 40%) of these people believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 !

 

[kat]

The Duelfer Report says that there was no ACTIVE PROGRAM for manufacturing WMDs. It also claims that there is no evidence of any new WMDs (made or bought) after Desert Storm. The only WMDs found are from old stockpiles; portions hidden here or there, of the size that may be found in at least a dozen other countries.

The question is stated as such:
Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq.

Had actual weapons of mass destruction...yes or no (47% Bush supporters state yes and apparently they are correct.)

Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them... yes or no (25% Bush supporters state yes, 18% of Kerry say yes.)


Had some limited activities that could be used to help develop weapons of mass destruction, but not an active program...yes or no (25% of Bush supporters state yes, Kerry supporters- 51% state yes)

Did not have any activities related to weapons of mass destruction.....yes or no ( Bush 2%, Kerry 22%)

The Duelfer report outlines WMD's found, as you have mentioned from old stockpiles etc...which could/would bring an affirmative answer to the first question.
The Duelfer report also outlines small scale clandistine and active programs which developed biological and chemical weapons and tested them on human subjects 'resulting in their deaths'.


Edit to add:

A portion of PIPA's summation states: Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

In regards to this portion of the study (I don't have time to go into the rest of it at this time) the summation would appear to contain at best a minimal amount of spin considering it is supposed to be a non-partisian study

 

[Gokul43201]

What I find more shocking is that 74% of these people believe the majority of world consensus is in their favor.

From reports I've read about India, China, South-East Asia, the Middle East (except Israel) Australia and Europe, this would not seem to be the case. I have no idea what folks in South America or Africa think, but I doubt they'll swing the consensus in favor of Bush.

And also there's the survey that BobG (I think) linked to some time ago, that showed that about 40% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - I'm getting repetitive, aren't I ?

 

[russ_watters]

To highlight the spin for those who may have missed it:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%)...

That little change in wording makes both factually true, while implying one is and one isn't.

IMO, this survey (there have actually been a series of them) is most interesting for how it highlights how surveys can be biased.

 

[Gokul43201]

Edit to add:

A portion of PIPA's summation states: Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

In regards to this portion of the study (I don't have time to go into the rest of it at this time) the summation would appear to contain at best a minimal amount of spin considering it is supposed to be a non-partisian study

The language is clearly biased. I'd have never thought it was a non-partisan group from the language.

 

[BobG]

What I find more shocking is that 74% of these people believe the majority of world consensus is in their favor.

From reports I've read about India, China, South-East Asia, the Middle East (except Israel) Australia and Europe, this would not seem to be the case. I have no idea what folks in South America or Africa think, but I doubt they'll swing the consensus in favor of Bush.

And also there's the survey that BobG (I think) linked to some time ago, that showed that about 40% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - I'm getting repetitive, aren't I ?

Actually, both threads refer to the same survey. It just took a little time for it to bubble up to national news.

Claiming that a few remnants of Iraq's WMD program proves the accuracy of the statement that WMD existed is quibbling. I think it's safe to say that well over 95% of their existing weapons were destroyed. There was no operational program by 2003.

The conclusion of all reports (the Intel Committee's assessment of prewar intelligence, the Duelfer Report) is that there was no operational WMD program. The Duelfer report was kind of a mixed bag, where the most accurate answer was that Iraq had no active WMD program, but it did support the idea that Iraq was prepared to resume it very quickly. The Duelfer Report did support the idea that Iraq would quickly become at least a chemical weapons threat once the sanctions were lifted, which is something for the Bush administration. And Iraq did have an active missile development program, which everyone already knew (prior to the invasion, they had to destroy some of their missiles for exceeding their allowable range). Both of those two programs served Iraq well during it's war with Iran and you could virtually guarantee that both would have received top priority in a post-sanctions Iraq.

How to deal with that prospect is certainly debatable. But it definitely was not the reason given for invasion. The survey supports the idea that Bush supporters still believe the initial reasons given for the invasion - Iraq's support for Al-Qaeda and a WMD program that posed an imminent threat.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...or burying their heads in the sand?

Many of the Bush supporters I have spoken with proudly declared that they didn't watch the debate. Clearly they don't want to be bothered with the facts. What's more, have you noticed that every one of Bush's campaign slogans is a lie; an obvious misrepresentation of the truth? Of course, one has to work a little to understand this. Prayer is not enough.

It is sickening.

Vote for lies, deception, and corporate interests over the public good: Vote Bush.

 

[setAI]

it's this sort of ignorant evil of the masses that really makes me give up hope on democracy- should the human race be allowed to walk stupidly into extinction just becasue they feel they need to have a voice in government? when important decisions have to be made- you ask the experts- not the uniformed masses- we need a technocracy but no one would accept that- it's going to be dicey whether we make it or not-

if the human race dies- it will be becasue we were too gracious with our respect of the primitive and ignorant

 

[Burnsys]

What I find more shocking is that 74% of these people believe the majority of world consensus is in their favor.

From reports I've read about India, China, South-East Asia, the Middle East (except Israel) Australia and Europe, this would not seem to be the case. I have no idea what folks in South America or Africa think, but I doubt they'll swing the consensus in favor of Bush.

And also there's the survey that BobG (I think) linked to some time ago, that showed that about 40% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - I'm getting repetitive, aren't I ?

I am from argentina... before and after the war we had lot's of demostrations against it.. in us an british embasys, we burned american flags also...

i think the same happened in almos every country of south america.

 

[cragwolf]

I'm not sure if the supporters of one camp are more uninformed or deluded than the supporters of the other camp, but this whole business of propaganda, of manipulating public opinion, is a fascinating one. You need to learn about a man called Edward Bernays, an American, who is regarded as the father of public relations. Do a Google and/or Amazon search and see what you come up with.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Both sides are horrible liars. What's worse is that we don't have a reaonably effective "defunking machine" that people can rely on.

Logic and careful analysis, not to mention a large amount of research are the best options we have. I've come to trust factcheck.org quite a bit. They seem quite fair in their assessments, sticking heavily to facts and explaining themselves in great detail.

From the quiz in question, I like the use of wording:

"Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization?"

The true answer to this is: has not.

However, there has been some evidence that at least suggests Iraq was being used by al-Qaeda as a training grounds and a resource. Their was also a roster somewhere showing known al-Qaeda members had received training under Iraq's military in comb at techniques and biological and chemical warfare. This is a link between Iraq & al-Qaeda. The question is did Iraq know they were aiding al-Qaeda.

Many of the questions work out this way. If you don't carefully analyze the question, you could mis-represent what they are asking. Saddam-al-Qaeda connection no, Iraq-al-Qaeda connection yes.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Oh, and one more thing. WMDs? Iraq did have them, the U.S. provided them to Saddam and Iraq. So if you ask, "Did Iraq/Saddam have WMDs?" The answer is indeed most definately, "Yes!"

However, if you add the clarifying clause, "after 1992" then the answer becomes, "no" save for the small, old stockpiles previously mentioned.

 

[kat]

What I find more shocking is that 74% of these people believe the majority of world consensus is in their favor.

I don't see where this figure is coming from. The question and replies are as follows:

Q15. Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:

The majority of people favor the US having gone to war... Bush supporters 26%, Kerry supporters 5%

The majority of people oppose the US having gone to war... Bush supporters 31%, Kerry supporters 74%

Views are evenly balanced..... Bush supporters 42%, Kerry supporters 20%

 

[one_raven]

You may be 'livid about this', but you are equally uninformed if you don't understand why people believe that Iraq had WMD before we went in.
In fact, I will say that those who believe Iraq DIDN'T have WMD before we went are the uninformed.

The point is that they STILL believe that they had them before we went in, not they DID believe.

Besides I DIDN'T believe it in the first place because no one came forward with any proof at all of it.
It is really beside the point what they believed BEFORE, the point is what has been admitted to by the Bush adminitration NOW.

 

[member 5645]

Besides I DIDN'T believe it in the first place because no one came forward with any proof at all of it.

Just because I can't stand this argument:

Timeline:
We give Saddam weapons.
Saddam invades Kuwait
UN retaliates
Armistace signed on the condition of disarming
UN weapons instpectors destory tons of weapons (long range missiles etc.)
Saddam's son in law escapes to Jordan, tells on Saddam's secret weapons stash
Saddam confronted, admits to anthrax, VX, etc. stockpiles (yes, more than we ever gave him, and substances he was not given). Says he will destroy them all.
Saddam lures son in law back to Iraq, has him executed.

Time passes, no one does anything.

Un presses saddam on WMD. Saddam says he destroyed them. Blix says soil samples show that the admitted amounts weren't destroyed at that spot. There are unanswered questions still.

Saddam hasn't cooperated, we go to war per the armistace, and subsequent resolutions.

HINT: Inspections are done to INSPECT, not search every grain of sand in Iraq. The burden of proof laid on Saddam. This is a tangent, but you have to have a complete lack of knowledge on Iraqi/US history for the last 10 years to think there were none " in the first place because no one came forward with any proof at all of it"

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't see where this figure is coming from. The question and replies are as follows:

Q15. Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:

The majority of people favor the US having gone to war... Bush supporters 26%, Kerry supporters 5%

The majority of people oppose the US having gone to war... Bush supporters 31%, Kerry supporters 74%

Views are evenly balanced..... Bush supporters 42%, Kerry supporters 20%

I read that in a Post article (which, I believe was talking about the same PIPA poll)...let me make sure I didn't get it wrong.

The PIPA poll also found that 31 percent of Bush supporters believed the majority of people in the world opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, compared with 74 percent of Kerry supporters. Bush supporters also believed most of the world favors Bush's reelection.

Guess I did get it wrong after all - my bad. I'd read this a while before my post and I had the wrong number stuck in my head.

 

[one_raven]

HINT: Inspections are done to INSPECT, not search every grain of sand in Iraq. The burden of proof laid on Saddam. This is a tangent, but you have to have a complete lack of knowledge on Iraqi/US history for the last 10 years to think there were none " in the first place because no one came forward with any proof at all of it"

Is that so?
So are you saying the simple fact that we gave/sold Iraq weapons in 1992, that gives us reaosn to assume he has WMD, a functional Nucler program and was enough of a threat to attack, even though there was no proof of any of this, other than weapons receipts?

By that rationale, we have an open card to attack Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, half the countries in Africa, Nicaragua, Panama and on and on and on.
Hell we have sold weapons to more countries than we HAVEN'T.
Does that give us an exuse to attack them?

There was no proof of any WMD.
He made no direct threat to us.
The Nuclear program was dilapidated and we had no reason to think otherwise.
Even if he had weapons he had no direct ties to al Qaeda.
All of this (that MANY of us said all along) was supported by the findings of 9/11 Commission.
Those that denied it all along and HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG are STILL finding ways to defend it?
What does it take?

 

[Mazuz]

al-Qaeda was probably in and out of many, if not all of the middle eastern countries, including Iraq. They even trained here in the US. Reason to rush war with Iraq then? Nope.

There were no WMD's found. To say there were, but back in 1992, is misleading and irrelevant to the problem at hand. No one is talking about 1992.

 

[member 5645]

Is that so?
1>So are you saying the simple fact that we gave/sold Iraq weapons in 1992, that gives us reaosn to assume he has WMD, a functional Nucler program and was enough of a threat to attack, even though there was no proof of any of this, other than weapons receipts?

2>By that rationale, we have an open card to attack Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, half the countries in Africa, Nicaragua, Panama and on and on and on.
Hell we have sold weapons to more countries than we HAVEN'T.
Does that give us an exuse to attack them?

3>There was no proof of any WMD.
4>He made no direct threat to us.
5>The Nuclear program was dilapidated and we had no reason to think otherwise.
6>Even if he had weapons he had no direct ties to al Qaeda.
7>All of this (that MANY of us said all along) was supported by the findings of 9/11 Commission.

1> No. You just jumped into putting words in my mouth. NO. We didn't provide the supplies for the nuke program, nor many of the admitted WMD he Saddam was accused of after GW1.
2>Do those countries have a signed armistice allowing force as a response for non compliance? Are those countries regularly attacking our military planes? There's tons of differences.
3>Except for Saddam's admission, and then lack of evidence the they were destroyed. Again, you make the mistake of thinking the burden of proof lay on the UN.It laid on Saddam. Perhaps you should read up on S Africa. When they scrapped their nuclear program, they came to the rest of the world saying "we want to rejoin, here is the proof we are getting rid of our program". They supplied documents, video, pictures, countless scientists. the Inspectors THEN did what inspectors do...inspect! Without material to inspect, inspections are worthless. Oddly, you believe that Saddam's cooperation was full, even when Blix disagrees with you.
4>Excepte regularly firing on US military jets enforcing a UN no-fly zone.
5>Again, you don't understand how this all works. We had every reason to believe it, even David Kaye's recent report made reference to the surprise at how far along discovered nuclear systems were when the inspectors went in after GW1. Until there was cooperation, you assume nothing has changed. Sanctions arne't put in place based on NOTHING Also interesting that you, and no one else, could make this claim until AFTER the second war.
6>You are skewing this. I said nothign about Al quaeda, and don't care if there was links or not. BTW, you are aware Saddam offered Bin Laden asylum after we sought him? (just an interesting fact, even though it never came to be anything)
7>If you said it all along, then you were constantly ingorant of the facts all along. You didn't/don't understand the inspection process, and you somehow had intelligence information that Bush, Clinton, the UN inspectors, Russia, France, Germany, AND EVERYONE (except you and this supposed crowd) beleived. Resolution 1441 wasn't passed because everyone thought Saddam was clean :uhh:

 

[00StangGT]

1.) Iraq had WMD (or a major program) before we attacked them (72%! )

Of course they did...why else would he kick out inspectors and hide stuff in the sand?

2.) We had proof of these WMD

of course we do; we constantly find shells and RPG's filled with WMD material (as you all know WMD encompases more than just nuclear arms)

3.) Iraq had and has verifyable ties to al Qaeda

sure do...just not 9/11; 9/11 commission even said that. No tie to Al-Quaeda for 9/11 but very strong ties to the terrorist community in general

4.) Bush administration is STILL claiming this to be true

because they are

 

[setAI]

unbelievable- there is simply no way to spin this garbage to defend the war in Iraq- facts are facts- no WMDs- no ties with Al Qaeda- we NEVER had any reason to suspect that they did- we already knew the WMDs were gone because of the crippling sanctions and the UN inspectors reports- we know no ties with Al Qaeda- but anyone who knows the culture and politics of the region already knew this becasue the Baathist and Islamisists hated each other more than they hated the infadel [ask an Iraqi- I work with several residents and physicians from different regions of Iraq and they all say the sam thing]-

we said all this from the beginning- and it was clear that Bush just wanted to be a cowboy and finish his Dad's job- and when we are proven right without a shadow of doubt- all you react with self-deception and denial and excuses- all promoting a dark future of isolation and fear-

 

[member 5645]

unbelievable- there is simply no way to spin this garbage to defend the war in Iraq- facts are facts- no WMDs- no ties with Al Qaeda- we NEVER had any reason to suspect that they did- we already knew the WMDs were gone because of the crippling sanctions and the UN inspectors reports-

Talking about spin...
You didn't know ANYTHING.
Or actually, here's your chance...where were you getting this magic information that NO ONE else in the world had?

No reason to suspect they did? I've got a laundry list of points you can refute.

 

[Gokul43201]

1.) Iraq had WMD (or a major program) before we attacked them (72%! )

Of course they did...why else would he kick out inspectors and hide stuff in the sand?

Kicking out inspectors does not imply the existence of WMDs or WMD programs. It is entirely likely that Saddam needed the threat of WMDs to project power in the region; against the Kurdish/Shia regions as well as for a deterrent against Iran.

2.) We had proof of these WMD

of course we do; we constantly find shells and RPG's filled with WMD material (as you all know WMD encompases more than just nuclear arms)

A couple of shells filled with banned chemicals does not constitute a WMD cache. Your use of the word 'constantly' stymies me. If I haven't missed anything big, I remember troops finding ONE shell with Sarin and ONE shell with mustard gas (sometime in May ?) - the latter in an ineffectual state because it degrades unless stored properly. There have been no discoveries I know of in a size that makes it a WMD cache. There was more Sarin gas in a Tokyo subway station in 1995 than has been found so far in Iraq !

Besides, the proof provided talked of a reconstituted Nuclear Program, and exact locations of warheads, chemicals, and chemical processing factories, none of which have checked out.

3.) Iraq had and has verifyable ties to al Qaeda

sure do...just not 9/11; 9/11 commission even said that. No tie to Al-Quaeda for 9/11 but very strong ties to the terrorist community in general

Yes, the 9/11 commission said there were sporadic ties to Abu Nidal, a wing of Al Qaeda. But do you have any idea of how many coutries had much stronger ties to Al Qaeda ? Besides Afghanistan, there's Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, UAE and Yemen...in the region alone. Iraq, had the weakest support for Al Qaeda among the lot.

The upshot is pretty clear : (1) No serious ties to Al Qaeda or involvement in 9/11, (2) No active WMD programs or WMDs bought or made after 1990.

 

[kat]

A couple of shells filled with banned chemicals does not constitute a WMD cache. Your use of the word 'constantly' stymies me. If I haven't missed anything big, I remember troops finding ONE shell with Sarin and ONE shell with mustard gas (sometime in May ?) - the latter in an ineffectual state because it degrades unless stored properly. There have been no discoveries I know of in a size that makes it a WMD cache. There was more Sarin gas in a Tokyo subway station in 1995 than has been found so far in Iraq !

In the interest of keeping our facts straight...

1. According to the Duelfer report they consider a "Cache" to be any amount of stored weaponry.

2. 152mm binary sarin artillary projectile and the 155mm sulfur mustard projectile you referred to were both IED's. I'd like to point out that the troops didn't really...find them...they were more or less...introduced to them..and the assumption was/is/could be that they came from a weapons cache.

3. In regards to Sarin in Tokyo...I'm not sure of the quantity used in Tokyo but I do understand that it doesn't take a whole lot of Sarin to kill a whole lot of people if it's delivered correctly.
which brings me to...

4. On Page 30 of the Duelfer report shows that Forty-one 122mm Sarin/cyclosarin SAKR-18 rockets discovered.

5. In another location outside of Baghdad there were Ten 155mm sulfur mustard projectiles.

 

[kat]

To put things in perspective in regards to the scope of the weaponry in Iraq a few further quotes from the Duelfer report:
section 3 page 34

ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one
quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons
caches throughout Iraq, and visited fewer than ten
ammunition depots identified prior to OIF as suspect
CW sites.

The enormous number of munitions dispersed
throughout the country may include some older,
CW-filled munitions, and ISG cannot discount the
possibility that a few large caches of munitions
remain to be discovered within Iraq.

Page 35

Recent data indicate that the grand total will continue
to grow. Over the six-week period from the
end of July to mid-September, CEA discovered an
additional 291 caches with a total of 105,028 tons
of munitions cache discoveries continued to the
time of writing.

 

[00StangGT]

A couple of shells filled with banned chemicals does not constitute a WMD cache. Your use of the word 'constantly' stymies me. If I haven't missed anything big, I remember troops finding ONE shell with Sarin and ONE shell with mustard gas (sometime in May ?) - the latter in an ineffectual state because it degrades unless stored properly. There have been no discoveries I know of in a size that makes it a WMD cache.

We've found 4-5 shells, Polish troops found 15 shells with a chemical more deadly than Sarin; and that's all I remember at the moment. I'm by no means a great rememberer but we've found quite a bit of material.

Also, it's not his fault the CIA had faulty information. He only goes on what he is shown and told and has to make a decision based on those facts. If the CIA thought it was true then Mr.Bush has no reason to not believe them.

So while he is the head man he can only go on what others say is true; I'd put more blame on the CIA/NSA then Mr.Bush IMHO.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Also, it's not his fault the CIA had faulty information. He only goes on what he is shown and told and has to make a decision based on those facts. If the CIA thought it was true then Mr.Bush has no reason to not believe them.

You obviously haven't followed the studies that say the CIA evidence was misused over their objections by the White House. Note that by the end, Powell was referring to British intelligence, not the CIA. As their case collapsed they kept searching for something to support their preconceived decision.

 

[L33T]

:rofl: :tongue2:

 

[Smurf]

Ok. so you found a few shells. Now can someone tell me how this constitutes an invasion?

 

[studentx]

How does it constitute sanctions?