Don't Confuse Us with Facts

Before the war in Iraq, polls showed that half the public (mistakenly) believed that there were Iraqis on the 9/11 flights. Courtesy of Atrios, we learn that a third now believe WMD stockpiles have been found in Iraq. If those weapons did exist, someone may have found them, but it hasn't been coalition troops so far. At this rate, Bush will win reelection on the strength of our booming economy. (Shh!)

Comments

[oops]

hate to pick nits on a throw away line but the economy seems to be doing somewhat better

To use one broad example, earlier in the year, the dow was hovering around 7700. Now it's tickling 9300. When over half of households own stock, this is no small thing...

[Anonymous]

Prime Minister John Howard says an Australian intelligence organisation, the Office of National Assessments, has advised him that at least one mobile laboratory found in Iraq was used to produce biological weapons.
The Opposition asked John Howard to respond to reports that two trailers found in Iraq were not mobile germ warfare laboratories, but produced hydrogen for artillery balloons.
Mr Howard says he asked the agency which advises him on intelligence matters to look into the report.
"I had some investigations made through the Office of National Assessments and I have been informed as follows: that United States and United Kingdom intelligence agencies have concluded that at least one of the three vehicle trailers found in Iraq is a mobile production, biological weapons production facility," Mr Howard said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s880966.htm

So they will tell the Aussies, but not American citizens? What gives?

[Anonymous]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB10555470166342600,00.html

---
But the rich are the ones that own the stocks. So, it won't mean much for the whole economy or for the 1.8 million people who have lost jobs in the past three years, but it is very bullish for the stock market and stock investors.

[Eric Lindstrom]

I agree with you that Bush needs to find WMD because that was his reasoning for the war. However, this doesn't illegitimize the war. This doesn't change the fact the Saddam was a horrible person, and should have been ridded. We HAVE found evidence of this, in the form of mass graves. Mass graves are in my opinion, equally as bad as weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between 10,000 Israelis dead from a WMD, or 10,000 Iraqis dead from Saddam?

[Eric]

Given that logic, I can think of several more deserving dictators - Mugabe for one, the jackasses who run the DRC, etc. You are always going to be able to one-up one nasty dictator with another nasty dictator. I don't like nasty dictators, but a primary raison d'etre for war cannot really be humanitarian goals because such is a very amorphous standard as opposed to "that jackass over there is about to invade/attack me, sick him."

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Yes, and according to over 1/3 of U.S. "liberals," mass graves in Iraq only contained a couple hundred people if that, and by the way, if you want to talk about children in prison, what's the youngest child in U.S. custody?

[The Lonewacko Blog]

"polls showed that half the public (mistakenly) believed that there were Iraqis on the 9/11 flights"

So, we've definitively, beyond a shadow of doubt determined the identities of all the hijackers?

As for the Iraq-AQ connection, there are dozens of (admittedly circumstantial) connections, and Iraq definitely had a PLF connection, including a training camp for them.

[Croesus]

Lonewacko,

Is the PLF a threat to the US?

"So, we've definitively, beyond a shadow of doubt determined the identities of all the hijackers?"

Is there some doubt as to their identities?

[Anonymous]

Iraq has provided aid to AQ and there are still AQ camps located in Iraq. There is an Iraq-AQ connection.

Mobile laboratories that are designed to produce biological agents and missiles that are designed to deliver those agents is enough proof to allow further investigation to go on without second-guessing

Given those two facts I can see how a poll question could be developed that would have me giving a technically incorrect answer to a question

[Sven]

Mass graves are completely irrevelant to the question of whether the administration lied its way into war.

The president's case, and congressional approval, for the invasion was predicated on the imminent threat posed by WMD.

If the administration wants to argue that the new national security policy is based on humanitarian intervention, fine. But an ex post facto humanitarian justification for Iraq is just another lie.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Well, the PLF was certainly a threat to Leon Klinghoffer, but, that was many years ago, so let's let bygones be bygones.

Yes, there is doubt about the identities of the hijackers: this. Also recall the more recent story about the Pakistani who had had his identity stolen by some terrorist or other.

[Julian]

Well, that's interesting, but also doesn't have anything to do with the polling issue, since there was no evidence indicating any of the hijackers were Iraqi, and therefore no reason for poll respondents to believe that there were.

[Anonymous]

was italy a direct threat in WW2?

or north africa?

[Anonymous]

Many US citizens buy the "Iraq is a part of the terror war," which of course was initiated by 9/11 ... I guess anything from now on done in the name of the terror war (metaphorical wars never end, by the way) will be tenously linked to the hijackings of September 11, 2001.

[Steve in CO]

Many US citizens buy the "Iraq is a part of the terror war," which of course was initiated by 9/11 ... I guess anything from now on done in the name of the terror war (metaphorical wars never end, by the way) will be tenously linked to the hijackings of September 11, 2001.

PS Forgot to sign this...

[Anonymous]

i hate it when metaphors crash airplanes into buildings!

[Steve in CO]

You know full well what I mean by a metaphorical war. Just like the drug war, it will never be declared "won," and there will never be a truce. It will go on and on, in perpituity.

"War is the health of the state." -- or something like that, I can't remember who said it.

[Anonymous]

"Platitudes are the health of the brainless" is the quote i believe.

people trying to nuke us = legit natl security concern

people smoking dope = not a natl security concern, nor claimed to be

[Jough]

About 250 people died on board the hijacked planes. I find it hard to believe none were Iraqis...oh, that's not what they meant....

[Lefty]

Whoever the Anon is that's freaked over being nuked, please know that we have now shot our military and diplomatic wad, have come up empty and couldn't fight a nuked up country now if we wanted to. Unless Anon and the rest of his chickenhawk friends want to get drafted.

[Dakota Loomis]

I wouldn't put much credence in the statements of a person who can't even sign his/her own posts and fails to grasp the existence of symbolic politics. For examples of symbolic politics one need look no further than the Bush administration's Jobs and Growth Act, the Department of Homeland Security or the Roadmap to Peace. The War on Terrorism or the War on Terror fits neatly into this category of misleading or mindless rhetoric and to deny so is both obtuse and disingenuous.

[Lazarus]

Dakota: The War does not resemble anything we have fought in the last 100 years, but it seems both obtuse and disingenuous to deny or state that it is a political fiction...or that there isn't an ongoing clash between hostile tribes. Not defending anon here, but who else is spreading misleading or mindless rhetoric, hmmm?

Maybe you are one of those that thinks that this is just another conspiricy, another devious design of the Matrix. Well enjoy the red pill man. But those of us still in the real world, terrorism is a problem and this problem requires real solutions. Denying the problem is not a real solution.

[Lefty]

Laz! You're back!

What do you make of this tar baby? I figger W is wont to get into another scuffle. Sharon spooked him and he'll now do the "multi-lateral" thing.

What's the Machiavellan line?

[Douglas Fletcher]

Oh come on, at any given time a third of the people believe they can tell their ass from a monkey pox.

[F Hammerbacher]

in Austria we have herd these kinds of stories for awhile now. "Cognitive Dissonance" about this War, this President and the Arguments in the World about Kyoto or Healthcare or about Europe has thrown the entire Western World into confusion. Not just America.

I thought that Americans did not believe that there are such weapons in Iraq. Was this war not just a first step in the American plan to generate peace in the Middle East? Do Americans really believe in the Alkaida connection in the Iraq? Or were these just stories to try to justify the war on paper? Now with the almost revolution in the Iran, what will the misunderstandings of the public be? Will Europe be tricked into supporting a dictator instead of opposing a war?

If you are for or against the President, he certainly has taken decisions and acted up on them. Maybe Europe will be able to act one day, too.

Sincerely,
Franz

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

Actually, it resembles the so-called "Cold War."

[Anonymous]

Iraqis were involved in 9/11. Iraq had WMD.

And I vote!

[cinquo]

who believes polls anyway?

oh wait, julian does (shh!)

[The Mountain Goat]

The media continued to bombard us with Aha!, only to be proven wrong later. But this time, I think the proof is conclusive. See the lead story at http://www.whitehouse.org Finally proof!

[Steve in CO]

To negate Mr. Anonymous's post (and vote):

Fact: There is no evidence of Iraqi involvement in the terrorism on 9/11, no WMDs have been found (programs are not WMD)... and two tractor trailers does not a program make.

And the above negates the assertions of the White House that they had, quote, "incontravertable proof," of stockpiled WMDs poised to strike at America. Simply, they lied to prosecute an invasion.

And I vote.

[Croesus]

Lonewacko,

Your willingness to believe tenuous possibilities is amazing.

[Lazarus]

Lefty: I assume you are referring to Isreal/Hamas. Well the best Machiavellan analysis I have read this morning was over at Volokh...
http://volokh.com/2003_06_15_volokh_archive.html#200427026

[omnibus bill]

You know, everybody in the entire world, except for Baghdad Bob, knew that Saddam had WMD stocks that were not accounted for. The place was rotten with WMDs throughout the '90s. When Bill Clinton asked the weapons inspectors to leave in '98 so he could do some bombing, the weapons stocks still existed. Did Saddam unilaterally destroy the weapons after the inspectors left? And funny, if the U.S. just made it all up, then why did the UN Security Council conclude that he still had not accounted for his WMDs, and then authorize inspections? And what about the prohibited weapons, including the SCUDs the US took out in the Baghdad marketplace? WMD's weren't the only reason to go to war. They were one of several good reasons. The only reason it is being playing up is because it is one of the major objectives of the war that hasn't yet been achieved. Funny, the German, French and Russian governments are silent about this whole issue... I wonder why.

What it comes down to is if you are anti-war, or you hate Bush, then you have a good story to bash him with for a while. It's not like Saddam didn't have the weapons through the mid-90's; piles of dead Kurds and Iranians, and UN weapons inspectors can attest to that. Eventually, the truth will out, and the chemical weapons will be found, or the story of their destruction or transfer to another country will be told. When that happens, then you can accuse Bush or the CIA of fabricating the evidence. It's a great tactic. With any luck, it will help produce a President Kerry, or Dean, or Clinton.

[joe]

Bill,

So the most pro-Bush reading of the situation is that there were tons of weapons ready for use, and the incompetance of the war and post-war planning allowed large amounts of nonconventional weapons (the actual term; WMD is a fake term) to be disbursed to every jihadi fanatic with a pickup truck.

I'd vote for Sharpton over this idiot.

[Anonymous]

of course you would joe, as you have a pathological hatred of bush. you must of have had a gym teacher who looked like him that once touched you in a naughty place!

[joe]

Yes, nameless, and the outcome has been an irrational hatred of anyone who makes it more likely that I'll die a violent death. Silly, pathological me.

[Croesus]

As I recall, during the the 1980s, something like 1/2 the population thought that the Contras were the "bad guys" in Nicaragua. Americans generally have a poor sense of things foreign (maybe other nationalities do too, though I think this is less so in Europe, where things foreign are so close) - which is why whenever there is a war you see Wal-Mart selling those "crisis maps" about the place the "boys are." In fact, didn't Ambrose Bierce write in "The Devil's Dictionary" that wars exist to "teach American's geography?"

[The Lonewacko Blog]

"Well, that's interesting, but also doesn't have anything to do with the polling issue, since there was no evidence indicating any of the hijackers were Iraqi, and therefore no reason for poll respondents to believe that there were."

I haven't seen the poll, but I'd imagine that it reflects a problem with the poll. Was "We don't habeus the corpuses and can't definitely identify the hijackers beyond a shadow of a doubt?" one of the questions?

One or more of the hijackers could have been Iraqis, however, given that most shaheedi come from other countries, that's probably not likely. The possibility does however exist.

[Croesus]

"It's not like Saddam didn't have the weapons through the mid-90's; piles of dead Kurds and Iranians, and UN weapons inspectors can attest to that."

I don't think he was using said weapons in the mid-90s; he did in the 1980s however. The UN inspectors attest to destroying a lot of them as well, BTW.

[vinden]

WMD was supplied to iraq by the US.Why? to feed the cows? obviously not? but to hit the iranians which america hates till today.When saddam used it againts its own people why america did not attack iraq? cause it needed saddam! now when saddam is crippled and useless,once the best friend,ally of US is considered a tyrant and heartless.So they do not need saddam but the second biggest reserve of oil in the world(iraq).Attack it! capture it! rob it of its wealth in the name of freedom? This has always beem the dirty trick of the merican governmetnt from world war 2.i am not supprised! the truth is both saddam and self centred bush has to go!