[P] Majority of Bush supporters think Iraq had WMD

[Sepiche]

Well I'm a little bored today so maybe I can get a fire going on the forum.

Anyone else seen this report?

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

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.

I guess the question I have to ask is, given this, is it possible to have an election based on issues when apparently the majority of people don't know what the issues really are?

How much of this could be blamed on pundits and campaigners on both sides going overboard on the spin, and how much blame can be put on the media for not getting the word out?

Regardless of political affiliation I don't think this bodes well for the future of politics in America.

s

[Rob_Merritt]

I don't think a majority of Bush supporters are that stupid. I think for the most part they are behind their canidate in all levels including polls. They know there was no WMD and they are fine with that and are happy to agree with the illusion even in that forum.

[Jag]

They will still find WMDs in Iraq. Most likely on Nov 1st.  :wink:

[AgtFox]

They will still find WMDs in Iraq. Most likely on Nov 1st.  :wink:

No, isn't that when they suddenly find Osama after his months in the Lincoln Bedroom (I kid!)

[YellowKing]

Iraq did have WMD at one time, and the destruction of some WMDs we know he had has never been verified. The Duelfer report also concluded that Saddam was actively trying to eliminate sanctions in order to resume his WMD programs. Sanctions that were being undermined every day by "allies" involved in illegal transactions. Yes, the very body that was to be so instrumental in keeping Saddam in check was in fact providing him with weapons and money the entire time.

While Kerry supporters like to gleefully point out that no WMDs have been found in Iraq, they tend to ignore the fact that the "UN inspection policy" they support would have eventually led to the resumption of Saddam's WMD program, this time without international scrutiny.

Perhaps our intelligence was flawed. At the end of the day, however, at least we didn't simply postpone the inevitable. And at least we exposed the UN for the ineffective and corrupt organization it is.

[Sepiche]

Iraq did have WMD at one time, and the destruction of some WMDs we know he had has never been verified.  The Duelfer report also concluded that Saddam was actively trying to eliminate sanctions in order to resume his WMD programs.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretations of the Duelfer report.

Here's a good synopsis of the report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

Choice quotes:

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.

But after extensive interviews with Hussein and his key lieutenants, Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike the United States with banned weapons, but wanted them to enhance his image in the Middle East and to deter Iran, against which Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war.

Sanctions that were being undermined every day by "allies" involved in illegal transactions. Yes, the very body that was to be so instrumental in keeping Saddam in check was in fact providing him with weapons and money the entire time.

Your right, France, Germany, and others were undermining the sactions by dealing with Iraq and for that they are asshats.  However those same sanctions were, according to both the 9/11 Commssion and the Duelfer report, working.

While Kerry supporters like to gleefully point out that no WMDs have been found in Iraq, they tend to ignore the fact that the "UN inspection policy" they support would have eventually led to the resumption of Saddam's WMD program, this time without international scrutiny.

Buh?  The sanctions and inspection have been doing their job for almost 10 years since the first Gulf War, and, as we have found, were doing the job rather well, and in all likely hood would have continued to keep Saddam in check.

Perhaps our intelligence was flawed. At the end of the day, however, at least we didn't simply postpone the inevitable.

Our invasion was inevitable?  True it was inevitable under Bush's leadership, since that was obviously his goal since September 11th if not sooner, but seeing as the sanctions and inpections were doing the job as intended I don't see why an invasion was inevitable?

Looks at Cuba for instance, once at the center of a incident that nearly started WW3, but left alone and under sanctions it has slowly withered away to a non player in world events.  The same would have been the fate of Saddam's regime IMHO.

s

[Exodor]

. The Duelfer report also concluded that Saddam was actively trying to eliminate sanctions in order to resume his WMD programs.


Perhaps our intelligence was flawed. At the end of the day, however, at least we didn't simply postpone the inevitable. And at least we exposed the UN for the ineffective and corrupt organization it is.

So let me understand...

The UN Sanctions were effectively stopping Saddam fromm acquiring WMD and cranking up his weapons prorams.

But the UN is ineffective?

 :?

[Zekester]

How long of an advance warning did Saddam have that we were coming for him, based on WMD's?

Anything he may have had prior to our warnings may very well be in Iran, Syria, etc..

I'm not about to close the book completely on the possibilities.

[Doopri]

The scariest thing for me about Iraq and weapons is what occured AFTER the US invasion.  Do you know that sites which were the location of Saddams pre-1991 weapons programs were left utterly undefended after the initial invasion and up to the current time?  UN inspectors were responsible for monitoring the installations, but they took off out of there after the US started bombing the *hit out of the place (obviously no more sanctions or inspections after US occupation).  The single worst part?  These installations were left unguarded and summarily dismantled over the period of MONTHS by elements unknown.  The US military doesnt know where they are, the Iraqi government doesnt know where they are - all they know are that where the pre-1991 facilities once stood there is now virtually nothing but a stripped foundation (this was seen over a period of months w/ sats).  Whos got em???  All this occuring after the fall of Saddam when no one in the US thought it would be a good idea to keep an eye on em.  To me THIS is the greatest WMD issue to come out of Iraq.

[EngineNo9]

This just in: I hate politics.

[Clanwolfer]

This just in: Majority of Bush supporters and brain-washed morons.

This is the kind of thing that will lose us R&P priveleges.  Edit that, please, and keep it off the forum in the future.

Edit for tone:  I'm not a mod, so I don't really have any authority or standing to ask, but I don't want one to duck in here, see that, report it to staff, and result in us losing R&P priveleges.  All it takes is one of us to ruin it for everyone.

[Jeff]

I agree with Clanwolfer, in that this is the kind of comment that starts the downslide. I would suggest attacking the issues, not the people. Even though you're not singling anyone out in particular, you're still saying that if a person here was a Bush supporter, then "there's a better than 50% chance you're a moron!"  

R&P is still under trial here,  so if we want to keep it, I suggest we play it as cool as possible.

[slackerjoe]

Iraq did have WMD. This is an incontrovertible fact.

[Clanwolfer]

Iraq did have WMD. This is an incontrovertible fact.

That's not the issue.  We know they did have WMD in the past.  The dispute is whether they had WMD, or the faciilities to produce WMD, in terror-effective quantities at the time of our build-up to invasion.  That looks ever more doubtful.

[slackerjoe]

Iraq did have WMD. This is an incontrovertible fact.

That's not the issue.  We know they did have WMD in the past.  The dispute is whether they had WMD, or the faciilities to produce WMD, in terror-effective quantities at the time of our build-up to invasion.  That looks ever more doubtful.

If they had WMD in the past, and inspections show they do not have them now, then where did they go? This should be the number one question being asked right now. Rumors are that they have been shipped to Syria or other neighboring countries. If we didn't remove Hussein, the only question is when Iraq would have had their weapons programs up and running again, not if.

It was Saddam's responsibility to prove he didn't have any WMD. He didn't do that and he underestimated the will of the Utnited States. Along with liberating Iraq, this has been a very useful example for the rest of the world's theocracies and dictatorships to take note of.

The thing about sanctions in Iraq is that they were not working. What was working was tens of thousands of US troops sitting across his border and enforcing a no-fly zone. But having that many troops in one location long-term is not a viable strategy. We were going to have either leave or take action And we know which way our fellow UN Security Council members France and Russia wanted us to go.  The UN Oil-for-Food was an unmitigated disaster the largest fraud in the history of the world.  That has been the real mistake that was made regarding Iraq - letting the UN run a scam which was helping to refinance Hussein's power while his people continued starving.

[Zekester]

Damn straight, sj

Jeff, Clanwolfer....thanks for cracking down on "No.9" :wink:
Damn, I thought we were all past that kind of crap by now  :!:

[Jaddison]

Iraq did have WMD. This is an incontrovertible fact.

It was Saddam's responsibility to prove he didn't have any WMD. He didn't do that and he underestimated the will of the Utnited States. Along with liberating Iraq, this has been a very useful example for the rest of the world's theocracies and dictatorships to take note of.

.

This, IMO, is a slippery moral slope, time and again we have proven (I think it was Truman) "He may be a son of a bitch but at least he is our son of a bitch".  We are more than willing to tolerate dictatorships and theocracies that opress their people in every which way as long as let us have what we want.

[JSHAW]

So what do you guys think happened to the WMD?

If you have more choices to pick from than these, post them;

1. WMD moved prior to the invasion/war.
2. WMD programs dismantled and nonexistant prior to the invasion/war.
3. NO WMD prior to the invasion/war.
4. WMD's buried in the sand, underground, not yet found, never will be found.

[Clanwolfer]

So what do you guys think happened to the WMD?

If you have more choices to pick from than these, post them;

1. WMD moved prior to the invasion/war.
2. WMD programs dismantled and nonexistant prior to the invasion/war.
3. NO WMD prior to the invasion/war.
4. WMD's buried in the sand, underground, not yet found, never will be found.

WMDs mostly dismantled, lost, or sold to other factions, but all of that occurring years and years ago.  I think there's a continuing threat from the mere existence of those weapons, but I don't think Saddam, at least at the time of the invasion, posed any additional threat, and wasn't manufacturing any more at the moment (even if he wanted to).  I also think the invasion itself, and the anarchy that followed, resulted in a massive increase to the threat to the US, as any stockpiles and materiel that did exist for WMDs was distributed to parties unknown.  We needed more men on the ground, more oversight, and better planning, especially since we made WMDs such a huge part of the case to invade.

[JSHAW]

The ONE THING that irritates me the most about the WMD issue is the dog & pony show that was the presentation to the U.N. by Colin Powell before the invasion/war.

When you look at everything that he presented and said, and compare that to what was not found on the ground it would leave one to believe that the presentation was a lie that was presented to provide public support in favor of the invasion of Iraq.

Then you have the report that was released a few weeks ago about the lack of evidence in the case of WMD's.

I don't know how anybody else feels here but something just isn't right about it. I'm a registered Republican and find it very hard to let it go and pledge unwavering support for Bush with the mistakes that have been made in Iraq.

I'm at the point right now that I don't want to vote for either candidate.
I don't believe in voting for someone who I don't support just because he's the only option I have as a Republican.