New Poll: 51% of Republicans believe we found WMDs in Iraq

[Michchamp]

Poll conducted by Fairleigh-Dickenson.

To be fair, the poll also found this:

"Still, large portions of other groups think that the WMD program, a major part of the justification for the invasion, was actually found, including 32 percent of Democrats."
​

This goes along with the point someone (I think sbee) made in the Dumb Things Republicans Do thread; yeah there are dumb Democrats, but there are undoubtedly more dumb Republitards. Here 51% of all Republitards are dumb, compared to 34% of Democrats. I guess that's something.

 

[KAWDUP]

Poll conducted by Fairleigh-Dickenson.

To be fair, the poll also found this:

"Still, large portions of other groups think that the WMD program, a major part of the justification for the invasion, was actually found, including 32 percent of Democrats."
​

This goes along with the point someone (I think sbee) made in the Dumb Things Republicans Do thread; yeah there are dumb Democrats, but there are undoubtedly more dumb Republitards. Here 51% of all Republitards are dumb, compared to 34% of Democrats. I guess that's something.

Suggestion for you (which I am almost sure you will shit all over), try putting that poll up in this forum asking that exact question, and see what answers you get?

 

[Michchamp]

Suggestion for you (which I am almost sure you will shit all over), try putting that poll up in this forum asking that exact question, and see what answers you get?

very well

 

[Gulo Blue]

There's probably some confusion on how to interpret the question. Did they find old, 80's/90's WMD's vs a WMD program?

 

[Sbee]

I'd assume a lot of them thought Iraq was behind 9/11 as well

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'd assume a lot of them thought Iraq was behind 9/11 as well

Dems were evenly split on whether or not Bush had advance knowledge of the attacks.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lieve_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

 

[Michchamp]

There's probably some confusion on how to interpret the question. Did they find old, 80's/90's WMD's vs a WMD program?

I thought it was neither. definitely no program/new WMD's, unless you believe that yarn that Saddam was able to drive it/them to Syria, right under our nose, after we invaded, and occupied the whole country, defeating the whole point of invading...

I remember our rationale changed. First it was to find the WMD's Saddam had & planned to use against us to create 9/11 time 1,000 or whatever, which was also supported by the allegations from Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice that Saddam & Al Qaeda were linked (allegations which they later denied making).

Then, after no WMDs were found, the rationale was that Saddam was a bad guy, who killed his own people, tortured his people, and was corrupt.

THEN the pictures from Abu Gharaib came out, along with all sorts of other things we did, showing that we were now also killing Iraqi people, torturing them, and were also corrupt.

And then... it was kinda just like "Well, Iraq has a democracy now, which is per se better than before, so it was worth it, shut up, things are improving, but the liberal media is just not reporting them because... they're liberal (even though this is the same liberal media that helped us sell all the falsehoods which were used to base the cause for invasion on and never seriously challenged, despite a lot of red flags) and I am not listening to you NANANANANANANA..."

 

[Gulo Blue]

I thought it was neither.

New York Times did a report on old weapons found. Over 5,000 warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. Some of them have been captured by ISIS.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...p-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

[Michchamp]

Suggestion for you (which I am almost sure you will shit all over), try putting that poll up in this forum asking that exact question, and see what answers you get?

Poll is up and waiting for you and your ilk to vote.

 

[Thumb]

New York Times did a report on old weapons found. Over 5,000 warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. Some of them have been captured by ISIS.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...p-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

So we invaded Iraq to deal with the (virtually non-existent) problem of Saddam's WMD's and in the end what little we did find, we just left there.

This will somehow be Obama's fault I bet. (comment not directed at Red)

 

[Michchamp]

So we invaded Iraq to deal with the (virtually non-existent) problem of Saddam's WMD's and in the end what little we did find, we just left there.

This will somehow be Obama's fault I bet. (comment not directed at Red)

And Saddam didn't use those WMD in 1991 or 2003 to defend his regime in an actual war, from actual US troops invading his country... but doggone it, he was ready to somehow deliver it to NYC and kill millions of non-combatant Americans during a time of peace because the Bush Administration (members of whom had been pushing "regime change" in Iraq since the 90's) said he would.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So we invaded Iraq to deal with the (virtually non-existent) problem of Saddam's WMD's and in the end what little we did find, we just left there.

This will somehow be Obama's fault I bet. (comment not directed at Red)

Maybe I missed it, but that's the part of the story the press seems oddly quiet on. If they expected these weapons, why weren't they better prepared to deal with them? Shouldn't that be aggressively questioned?

 

[Gulo Blue]

And Saddam didn't use those WMD in 1991 or 2003 to defend his regime in an actual war, from actual US troops invading his country... but doggone it, he was ready to somehow deliver it to NYC and kill millions of non-combatant Americans during a time of peace because the Bush Administration (members of whom had been pushing "regime change" in Iraq since the 90's) said he would.

Link to anyone saying he was ready to kill millions in NYC?

 

[Michchamp]

Link to anyone saying he was ready to kill millions in NYC?

Errr... maybe I have my propoganda wrong.

I can't remember who said the "9/11 times X" quote, and I'm not sure if it was 1,000, or 100.

9/11 times 1,000 is ~2900 deaths * 1000 = 2,900,000. So that's how I came to the "millions" figure.

Of course, it's an abstract concept with more than one interpretation of how it could be calculated. In Team America, it was 911 * 100 = 91,100.

I don't think the Bush Administration really spelled out exactly what they meant. But we did go to war, like they wanted, so it's water under the bridge at this point.

 

[Thumb]

Maybe I missed it, but that's the part of the story the press seems oddly quiet on. If they expected these weapons, why weren't they better prepared to deal with them? Shouldn't that be aggressively questioned?

Because that would have been deemed un-American.

Remember people were actually trying to get the name "French Fries" permanently changed to "Freedom Fries", and very few people seemed to be bothered by the Patriot Act. What journalist in their right mind would have questioned the government/military over a silly little thing like that?

Also check this shit out:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016.html

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/conservatives-continue-get-iraqi-wmd-story-wrong

 

[Gulo Blue]

Because that would have been deemed un-American.

Remember people were actually trying to get the name "French Fries" permanently changed to "Freedom Fries", and very few people seemed to be bothered by the Patriot Act. What journalist in their right mind would have questioned the government/military over a silly little thing like that?

Also check this shit out:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016.html

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/conservatives-continue-get-iraqi-wmd-story-wrong

This was a secret in the freedom fries days. It came out in October. That's when it should have been questioned. Or now. It was only 3 months ago.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Errr... maybe I have my propoganda wrong.

I can't remember who said the "9/11 times X" quote, and I'm not sure if it was 1,000, or 100.

9/11 times 1,000 is ~2900 deaths * 1000 = 2,900,000. So that's how I came to the "millions" figure.

Of course, it's an abstract concept with more than one interpretation of how it could be calculated. In Team America, it was 911 * 100 = 91,100.

I don't think the Bush Administration really spelled out exactly what they meant. But we did go to war, like they wanted, so it's water under the bridge at this point.

It was a Democrat.

"The consequences of a biological attack are almost beyond comprehension. It would be 9/11 times 10 or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed," former Sen. Bob Graham said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/02/terror.report/

 

[Gulo Blue]

Because that would have been deemed un-American.

Remember people were actually trying to get the name "French Fries" permanently changed to "Freedom Fries", and very few people seemed to be bothered by the Patriot Act. What journalist in their right mind would have questioned the government/military over a silly little thing like that?

Also check this shit out:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016.html

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/conservatives-continue-get-iraqi-wmd-story-wrong

What I'm getting at is more provocative than anything Maddow said. We "found out" about the old weapons 3 months ago. There were rumors before, but this was the big, solid story about it. What's remarkable about it isn't that the old weapons were there or that they hadn't been destroyed. It's that they exposed that we weren't prepared to find any weapons. The provocative implication is that we knew there weren't any weapon there from the start. If the point of the operation is to go find WMDs, you go prepared to find WMDs.

 

[Thumb]

What I'm getting at is more provocative than anything Maddow said. We "found out" about the old weapons 3 months ago. There were rumors before, but this was the big, solid story about it. What's remarkable about it isn't that the old weapons were there or that they hadn't been destroyed. It's that they exposed that we weren't prepared to find any weapons. The provocative implication is that we knew there weren't any weapon there from the start. If the point of the operation is to go find WMDs, you go prepared to find WMDs.

Yeah, the links were just a secondary frustration thing, sort of pointing out how many people still don't know the truth about the WMD situation in Iraq, or do and are just too stubborn to admit it. The media probably deserves a fair part of the blame for not making a bigger deal out of the fact we spent trillions of dollars, and rang up over half a million casualties in that fiasco.