Headlines Poll: Many Still Link Iraq With WMD

[voiceofreason]

WASHINGTON - 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you've got to give them something for "hanging" in there...

Wonder where they think they WMD's could be? Perhaps Saddam, that "Evil Genius", secretly stored them up they're asses...

 

[Skitch0o0]

WASHINGTON - 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you've got to give them something for "hanging" in there...

Wonder where they think they WMD's could be? Perhaps Saddam, that "Evil Genius", secretly stored them up they're asses...

No no no, he destroyed them all. I mean, this makes perfect sense. He was going to be deposed no matter what, so it's not like he'd just use them. I don't understand people either. "He had WMDs! I swear. Everyone who doesn't believe this is ignorant and a blind faith liberal." Right, and that's exactly why the Bush administration isn't saying that they had WMDs any more.

 

[dustinzgirl]

That whole ENTIRE Mid east area is a mass of CAVES not pussy ones like we have, but never ending tunnels. I absolutley believe they have weopons of mass destruction. It has nothing to do with Bush, I just think they do. They are a very rich and secretive country that does not like anyone who doesnt like thier religious authority. They KILL ENTIRE VILLIAGES OF THIER OWN PEOPLE and put them in MASS graves. I have no mercy for them. They murder thier own women and children.

 

[Skitch0o0]

They murder thier own women and children.

That's why we're better than they are. They're just animals. We never kill our own.

 

[whatever]

Ask and you shall receive. It will be a religious authoritarian government shortly after if not before this Bush pulls our troops out.

Damn right we're better. We can make a profit on killing our own.

 

[voiceofreason]

Damn right we're better. We can make a profit on killing our own.

Amen! And other people too!

 

[anti-movielife]

oh golly jee i just cant wait for you yanks election, its not often that the fate of the free world is at stake

 

[morelos]

They KILL ENTIRE VILLIAGES OF THIER OWN PEOPLE and put them in MASS graves.

time to call BS.

the only "iraqi" people killed en masse in iraq have been the kurds, who are a displaced people, like the hmong in cambodia and laos, like the palestinians in israel.

calling a kurd iraqi is like calling a palestinian israeli -- they just happen to live there, geographically, but they are hated by the people of that country.

saddam uses us-made gas to kill kurds who are in the way of his war with iran (which was really just USSR [iran] vs US [iraq]) and everyone gets their butt in an uproar. israel routinely bulldozes palestinian housing blocs, killing residents (man, woman, child alike) and all they get is a slap on the wrist by the UN. now they build a wall which will imprison the palestinians, and again only a slap on the wrist.

if we want to fix the problem of ethnic or religious cleansing, of genocide of any type (what a poor, misused word), we have MANY countries to invade.

funny, though, that all the rest of them don't have anything we can plunder once we sack them.

~ dan ~

 

[voiceofreason]

time to call BS.

if we want to fix the problem of ethnic or religious cleansing, of genocide of any type (what a poor, misused word), we have MANY countries to invade.

funny, though, that all the rest of them don't have anything we can plunder once we sack them.

~ dan ~

YES, Sudan, Sudan...

 

[DanGeo23]

to say that the WMDs were never there is ignorant... if 54% of people polled believed that they had them or were producing them.. then 56% of people polled are dumbasses and are ignorant of history... the Kurds musta gassed themselves... and I know that we helped Iraq and may have given them some technology to make some gasses... in hindsight that was stupid... may have seemed like a good Idea at the time.. but obviously not in the long run... that being said... how can anyone say that he didn't have them... I guess that Bill C. and Mad. Albright.. used the same intel agencies that GWB did and came up with the end conclusion that there were NBC threats there... where is the outrage... where are the people calling for Bill C. to stand trial for war crimes...

Saddam had 12 years to dispose of or hide the WMDs that the UN found... that the UN has forgotten it found.

 

[voiceofreason]

Saddam had 12 years to dispose of or hide the WMDs that the UN found... that the UN has forgotten it found.

So, would you start a war based on 12 year old info?

You can't kill thousands of people (including your own people) based on things that happened 12 years ago.

Bush needed to be CERTAIN - and he wasn't.

How can you forgive that?

 

[TheGunslinger85]

Does anyone really know? Yes, we do know that Saddam had them at one point, as we were the supplier in that deal. (Way to go Reagan!!!) What has he done with them? Who knows? Yes, this might have been a problem down the road. Saddam might have given terrorists weapons they could only get from a hundred other places.
Why did we act unilaterally? That is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of the war. Let's face it, the "Coalition" consisted of Britain and The United States. Yes, Mr. Bush can read a very long list of countries that have 30 people in Iraq helping rebuild roads. The fact still remains that we are paying for a war that seems to have shifting justification. First, they have WMDs. Dont find those (I am not necessarily saying they are not just hidden, b/c honestly I have no frickin clue), so all of the sudden we are doing this to free the Iraqi people? Or is it part of the War on Terror? Because, as we all know, Saddam Hussein is personally responsible for Sept. 11. Is it just me, or did we take that country and fill it with terrorism? How many more terrorists has acting unilaterally allowed the extremists to create?

 

[Skitch0o0]

to say that the WMDs were never there is ignorant... if 54% of people polled believed that they had them or were producing them.. then 56% of people polled are dumbasses and are ignorant of history...

I'm not very good at numbers, but to me that looks 110%

the Kurds musta gassed themselves...

I forgot, oh yeah, 4000 rounds of gas to kill 200 people is obviously a weapon of MASS destruction. Marines kill with more efficiency than Sarin gas. If the sarin gas started shooting 9mm shells, I'd be worried.

Saddam had 12 years to dispose of or hide the WMDs that the UN found... that the UN has forgotten it found.

Right, which is exactly why Bush said they still had them? He didn't say they used to have them but may have disposed of them in the those 12 years. If they had disposed of them, then they'd have conformed to the UN orders and we would have even LESS right to be there. Your logic is erring here and there. Watch yourself.

 

[Skitch0o0]

Does anyone really know? Yes, we do know that Saddam had them at one point, as we were the supplier in that deal. (Way to go Reagan!!!) What has he done with them? Who knows? Yes, this might have been a problem down the road. Saddam might have given terrorists weapons they could only get from a hundred other places.
Why did we act unilaterally? That is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of the war. Let's face it, the "Coalition" consisted of Britain and The United States. Yes, Mr. Bush can read a very long list of countries that have 30 people in Iraq helping rebuild roads. The fact still remains that we are paying for a war that seems to have shifting justification. First, they have WMDs. Dont find those (I am not necessarily saying they are not just hidden, b/c honestly I have no frickin clue), so all of the sudden we are doing this to free the Iraqi people? Or is it part of the War on Terror? Because, as we all know, Saddam Hussein is personally responsible for Sept. 11. Is it just me, or did we take that country and fill it with terrorism? How many more terrorists has acting unilaterally allowed the extremists to create?

The best part of this is that the only terrorists that we have fought in Iraq weren't even affiliated with Saddam in any way. Also, the vast majority of our encounters with actual Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups has been OUTSIDE of Iraq. Right now in Iraq almost the only people we are fighting are leaders of political/military groups that Hussein had kept squelched for the last couple decades. Looks like there was something he was better at than the US.

 

[rbutler_7]

ya, what he said..

 

[DanGeo23]

So, would you start a war based on 12 year old info?

You can't kill thousands of people (including your own people) based on things that happened 12 years ago.

Bush needed to be CERTAIN - and he wasn't.

How can you forgive that?

last I czeched the Prez isn't on the ground gathering the info.. he has to rely on the info gathered for him... just like BC did... there was intel from Russia... Germany... France... US... but now we say that it is GWBs fault that he acted on the info presented to him... John Kerry made more of a case for war then GWB ever did... but we forget that too..

I'm not very good at numbers, but to me that looks 110%

yeah... oops... so there are 46% of people polled that are dumbasses...

I forgot, oh yeah, 4000 rounds of gas to kill 200 people is obviously a weapon of MASS destruction. Marines kill with more efficiency than Sarin gas. If the sarin gas started shooting 9mm shells, I'd be worried.

WTF... so does this mean that you believe like Nancy Pelosi that guns are WMDs.... well that might not be what you are trying to say... but your statement is confusing... then again I couldn't add properly...
I'm glad that our soldiers are more efficient then sarin...

Right, which is exactly why Bush said they still had them? He didn't say they used to have them but may have disposed of them in the those 12 years. If they had disposed of them, then they'd have conformed to the UN orders and we would have even LESS right to be there. Your logic is erring here and there. Watch yourself.

you don't really believe that he did... do you... dispose was a bad choice of words... you obviously were assuming that I meant they were disposed of in accordance with UN regulations.... but since "dispose of" means....
1. To attend to; settle: disposed of the problem quickly.
2. To transfer or part with, as by giving or selling.
3. To get rid of; throw out.
4. To kill or destroy: a despot who disposed of all his enemies, real or imagined.
I was talking more along the lines of #2 or #3... I truely believe that they are either buried in Bumfuq Iraq or they are in Syria... if he woulda dismantled them IAW UN requests then why would he have kicked out the inspectors... he woulda made a big show of it... "look at me.. the good guy... handin over everything"...

Since we all know they were there... per UN inspectors.... Bush I administration... Clinton admin.... Isreal... Kurds... France... Russia... China... Germany.... CIA... FBI.... we can agree that it is a scarier to not know now where they are... it would be much nicer to bury our heads in the sand and go back to being complacent....
maybe they spontaneously combusted...

 

[morelos]

i still don't understand why it's ok for us to have every hi-tech WMD in the universe, but it's not ok for certain other people.

considering there is no governing body higher than the national level on this planet, it only makes sense that equal military representation would automatically keep nations checked and balanced.

~ dan ~

 

[DanGeo23]

and I disagree... I know you are shocked... so then you think that Saddam should get nukes to make it fair?.... nah.. I know thats not what you mean... all it would take is one hot head to get pissed and launch a nuke and then they all come rainin down.. from every corner of the spherical world.. I wouldn't mind if all nukes were removed from the inventory... and we could all agree on "rules" for war... but I think that we would be the only ones that would come close to abiding by them... BTW we don't use Chems or Bios...

 

[voiceofreason]

and I disagree... I know you are shocked... so then you think that Saddam should get nukes to make it fair?.... nah.. I know thats not what you mean... all it would take is one hot head to get pissed and launch a nuke and then they all come rainin down.. from every corner of the spherical world.. I wouldn't mind if all nukes were removed from the inventory... and we could all agree on "rules" for war... but I think that we would be the only ones that would come close to abiding by them... BTW we don't use Chems or Bios...

BTW we may not use them (Chems & Bios), but we HAVE THEM. Oh, but that's right we're special...AND we're the Policemen of the World - when it suits us, and our VP can make A LOT of money off it...

 

[TheGunslinger85]

The best part of this is that the only terrorists that we have fought in Iraq weren't even affiliated with Saddam in any way. Also, the vast majority of our encounters with actual Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups has been OUTSIDE of Iraq. Right now in Iraq almost the only people we are fighting are leaders of political/military groups that Hussein had kept squelched for the last couple decades. Looks like there was something he was better at than the US.

Indeed.