Yes, Iraq Definitely Had WMD, Vast Majority Of Polled Republicans Insist
WASHINGTON -- How misinformed are Republicans about world affairs? If presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's assertion that Russia is "without question our number one geopolitical foe" is any indication, then the answer would appear to be very.
A new poll supports that theory.
The poll, constructed by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino and conducted by YouGov from April 26 to May 2, found that fully 63 percent of Republican respondents still believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in 2003. By contrast, 27 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats shared that view.
Jim Lobe, chief of the Inter Press Service's Washington bureau, reported the finding in his blog on Wednesday.
The Bush administration's insistence that the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction and might give them to terrorists was a key selling point in its campaign to take the country to war. It turned out to be untrue.
Debate continues over whether former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and other top officials knew there were no WMD, but intentionally deceived the American people and Congress because they were intent on attacking Iraq for less palatable reasons -- or whether they managed to convince themselves that it was true using cherry-picked intelligence.
There is no reality-based argument that Iraq actually had WMD, after extensive searches found none, but this is hardly the first time many Americans have been certain of something that simply wasn't true.
A Washington Post poll in September 2003 found that nearly 70 percent of all Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks -- even though he was not.
Bush, Cheney and others consistently linked al Qaeda to Hussein in speeches they gave in the run-up to war, and the media rarely pushed back. But neither Bush nor Cheney continued to claim that there were actual WMDs in Iraq once the searches came up empty -- although they both continued to insist that Saddam had the "capability" to produce them.
Rather than a failure of the media, therefore, this latest poll result seems to indicate a refusal -- unique to the modern Republican Party -- to acknowledge facts.
According to this poll, an even larger proportion of Republican respondents who said Iraq had WMD -- 64 percent -- said they have either always believed (or have come to believe) that Barack Obama was born in another country, which he was not.
Overall, the poll found Republicans to be considerably more militaristic in their worldview than Democrats and independents.
In a finding that would indicate plenty of GOP support for yet another war in the Middle East, nearly two-thirds of Republicans said it's very likely that if Iran produces a nuclear weapon, it would use it against Israel.
The CIA's report - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
This isn't about opinion, its about FACTS. The only basis for the theory was teh purchase of materials in Africa which was disproved and Sadaam's guy that was supposed to have had the connection to Bin laden, ALSO proven to be false
Quoting Jambo4:
Like I said, with my research into it, they had all the time in the world to do whatever they needed to hide them. We gave them AGES! So im MY never humble opinion.. yes they were there.
Quoting sweet-a-kins:
Them hiding them as a possible way the Bush admin was eight (NO idea what this says)
This was all hinged on shaky intel..Which they learned was false
First about the link to Bin Laden
Then about the supposed purchase of uranium in Africa
This is all detailed by Colin Powell, Richard Clark and many others.
It simply wasn't there
Quoting Jambo4:
What's incorrect? My opinion? That they had all the time in the world?
Quoting sweet-a-kins:
That's incorrect.
Quoting Jambo4:
I think they did. I think they had all the time in the world to hide them. We gave them that.
Why? Because Saddam wasn't being the puppet he was set up to be? He was propped up in the 80s and this whole thing started when he stopped being a Western Puppet. Even while he was being a puppet and doing as he was told he was doing horrible things to his own people and the US (and no other nation) stepped in and told him to stop. It was only until he cut the puppet strings and the CIA failed to kill him that the military was sent in.
So no. The war never had to happen. None of it had to happen. But Western interests have been controlling that area and other areas for a very long time. Damn the people of those places and what they want to hell.
Quoting rachelrothchild:Whether they did or didn't, we would have gone to war with them.
No. There were no weapons of mass destruction, carpy. The premise of the Iraq invasion was based on false intelligence about Hussein trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Africa.
Quoting Carpy:
Because they did. Left wing bloggers still get that wrong
More disraction from the current issues.I do not believe for one single second that Saddam did not have anything.He was an evil and nasty pos excuse for a human being.Yes he had PLENTY ..VERY ample amounts of time to hide whatever he wanted to.
Quoting tnmomofive:More disraction from the current issues.I do not believe for one single second that Saddam did not have anything.He was an evil and nasty pos excuse for a human being.Yes he had PLENTY ..VERY ample amounts of time to hide whatever he wanted to.
Maybe I do :shrugs: it is my opinion.Either way Saddam was a total pos he should have suffered a worse death than he did.
By the way some military personel say he DID have something.Not all are in agreerance..just so you know.
Judge refuses to stop Arizona from denying driver's licenses to immigrants
- sweet-a-kins
on Jun. 21, 2012 at 3:11 PM