This is as it should be, and the media should rejoice: if half of the people believe in false assertions, it means that media is doing a spectacular job of not being biased for the truth.

American exceptionalism demands a steady diet of fairy tales.

This is the work entirely of Fox news, Hannity's trumpeting ofSantorum's and Hoekstra's lies. I mean, some 14 percent of the country gets its news from Fox, right?

This is good! In the future, when all media is filtered through the military-industrial-corporate-jesus complex through automated vetting of content, americans will all think identically about all issues. This will be in accordance with our corporate mind-control masters' wishes, and our compulsive spending habits will be sold to the media blitz which buys the most mind-space time. Then we will truly achieve our corporate-fascist nirvana that so many of us are already dreaming about.

This simply boggles my mind.

I attribute it to Global Warming. Being from L.A., my brain has definitely been fried this Summer. Karl Rove is a motherfucking genius.

I don't see why its surprising. The right wing shills have been repeating the lies on and on, and they haven't been attacked on them the way they should be in highly visible fora.

Of course the myths are going to solidify into common knowledge.

This is one poll and I really question how accurate it is. Given Bush's poll numbers it doesn't seem correct to me...

If anything, this story may help set the facts straight for some people...the ones who are confused, not just ideologically blind.

Or, Saddam had ties / WMD that no one has discovered yet.

The most plausible explanation for the increase in the number believing this is that it continues to be poorly covered by the media, while disinformation is peddled by right wing "news" sites.

See, e.g. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html

The Washington Times article you link to doesnt help either since it mentions the 500 canisters but leaves out the most important information - that they were old and useless:

You should link to Editor & Publisher which although shorter provides the relevant facts:

In early summer, there were reports that 500 shells once containing mustard or sarin gas nerve agents were found buried long ago in Iraq but they were judged by experts and military officials as decrepit and useless by 2003.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002878773

Even if complaints from us shrill liberal bloggers are dismissed, surely poll results like this should get the media pondering the question of whether they're doing a very good job of reporting what's really going on.

The media is largely a form of commercial entertainment. Their job is not "reporting what's really going on", instead it is securing a valuable demographic as an audience to facilitate the sale of advertising.

So, no, the media isn't going to be provoked by this poll to seriously investigate that question; they might tie some fluffy stories relating to that question around the poll results (if they don't largely ignore it), but they aren't going to seriously investigate it for the purpose of changing their own approach, because it starts with a false premise as to their purpose.

Read "Stumbling on Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert. Very funny and interesting. He observes that our memory works by reconstructing the past from bits and pieces, not by reading off a tape or hard drive. The result is that we fix the past to be more consistent with the present (something like Orwell's 1984). That's what's operating here.

I'm a bit dizzy from beating my head on the desk, but one quibble:

Given that we have found small, scattered probablt forgotten caches of degraded pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, how many folks are unconvinced by previous propaganda and Santorum/Hoekstra spin, but nevertheless answer "yes" to the WMD question? In other words, how many would answer yes to a poll question asking about if Iraq had WMDs that posed a significant threat, or if knowing what we know now, were WMDs a good reason to go to war?

Granted, probably a similar number, given the other figures, if accurate . . .

surely poll results like this should get the media pondering the question of whether they're doing a very good job of reporting what's really going on

If the media considered its job to be "reporting what's really going on," you'd be right. However, there's less and less evidence that such is the case. Indeed, the poll you cite is evidence against.

The "news" of the collapse of Iraq has been driven off the front pages by Israeli vengence in Lebanon. I saw the other day -- I wish I could remember where -- the comment that the Admin has essentially moved on from Iraq. Dwelling on their failure in Iraq mustn't be forgotten, but neither should we ignore the fact that the "intelligence" and "mission" of the people who gave us the horror of Iraq have now moved on to other things.

Heaven help us all.

Part of it might be rationaization. Millions of Americans don't want to admit to themselves that they enthusiastically supported such an incredibly stupid policy. Millions don't want to admit that they were suckered.

And of course, the steadfast refusal of the Democrats to actually talk about the War in Iraq - why we made the mistakes we did, what our options are, etc., has left the field open for the right wing propagandists to keep spewing out their lies.

When I look back before the Iraq War, I think only one thing might have worked to stop it. Not demonstrations, not posturing, but instead a national advertising campaign showing the twin towers, and reminding everyone that none of the hijackers were Iraqi, that the UN had said that Iraq didn't have any weapons that threatened the US, and another ad just saying that Osama and Saddam were bitter enemies. In other words, a simple laying out of the facts.

Oh well.

It's called brainwashing, which is what talk radio, fox news, etc., are topnotch at.

People believe what they want to believe.

After 9/11, Americans wanted retaliation, and Saddam was the only major Middle Eastern villain they knew (besides bin Laden himself). Led by their president, they convinced themselves he was behind it.

Al Qaeda was a nebulous, slippery organization, best fought with painstaking, under-the-covers police work rather than big, conventional armies. Saddam was the opposite, somebody who could be fought and defeated in the traditional, grandiose way. Removing him gave Americans a sense of closure, a release to the emotional shock of 9/11. The Afghanistan war wasn't enough; it was too small, fought mostly by foreign troops.

That is why conservative propaganda was so effective - it told people something they wanted to hear. It is why attempts to tell the real story fall on deaf ears. People don't want to believe the truth.

I the most interesting thing isn't that people are stupid and gullible, the interesting this seeing this in light of the Bush poll numbers. Obviously they're not about the fact that we went to war. My feeling is more of Bush's poor numbers than we think is due to him not delivering for the Christian right. Bush didn't deliver the Christian theocracy he promised and they feel used. On top of it many of the rural blue collar fundies are feeling the economic pinch of Bush's new economic order.

I asked my business partner who responded that they did find chemical weapons.

He was talking about the pile of old junk that was uncovered recently - but he said, that means the answer to your question is yes, they found WMDs!

I'm guessing that is what's driving the latest stupidity. Ain't propaganda a wonderful thing!

Why is it when the polls favor the positions of liberals, they hail the public for their wisdom and insight but when a certain poll refutes the "conventional thinking" of the left, something's wrong?

Could it be they are doing their own homework and not swallowing the garbage the left spews out daily?

So, now you know what to expect when the reality becomes that a military dictatorship in the US is full blown...they will remember that military dictatorships are good things....

This public isn't capable of being a responsible democracy...it will accordingly suffer terribly for its stupidity. As my brother says, nuclear war is just what the doctor ordered for America.

I would say the results of this poll demonstrate the MSM is doing an excellent job. An excellent job withdrawing Americans from reality.

The farther Iraq slides into civil war, the farther Americans will retreat from reality. It is the only defense they have to protect their delicate psyches from massive guilt.

It depends on what your definition of "WMD" is.

It depends on what your definition of "had" is.

Most of all, it depends on what your definition of "infallible, decisive leader" is. If that is George W Bush, then there is no need to discuss anything further.

You don't know for a fact that Iraq didn't have WMD, nd you have no idea how Iraq will turn out. Is it really so wrong if other Americans reach different conclusions than liberal bloggers?

Army Group Steiner will break the Russian offensive and lead us to total victory!

Liberals have the habit of making up their minds on an issue early and never revisting it.

Parody or the GOP base? My guess is this fool is "Hanitized."

tyronen's post of 2:09PM: pay attention to it and re-read it.

Thanks, tyronen.

As the prewar facts become clearer and Iraq spirals further into civil war, the American public becomes ever more withdrawn from reality.

"Those whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad."

Yesterday I had an appointment at my local hospital, and was processed in by two nice young women, I would guess late 20's, early 30's. They were efficient, seemingly competent, dressed well, and friendly. There was nothing about them that suggested 'clueless bozo here.'

Having a few spare minutes to chat, our conversation turned to movies, and I indicated that I was planning to see Al Gore's movie on global warming sometime soon. They looked at me with puzzled faces-- What is global warming, they asked? Neither of them had heard the term before, and so I was left trying to explain the issue the best I could.

The experience left me feeling sort of disoriented and depressed. How is possible that people in this day and age haven't even heard of global warming? We must be living in different information streams, with some people getting a very different version of reality than others.

What to do about a nation this clueless?

where the hell is Al???

The experience left me feeling sort of disoriented and depressed. How is possible that people in this day and age haven't even heard of global warming? We must be living in different information streams, with some people getting a very different version of reality than others.

Man, I've had some fuckin' horror stories along that line. A particular favorite was arguing with someone who claimed that the war in Iraq wouldn't destabilize the Middle East because Iraq "wasn't central to the Middle East." I had to pull out a map to convince him, and even then I'm not sure he believed me -- it was almost as if he thought I'd had the map specially printed to fool him.

You don't know for a fact that Iraq didn't have WMD

ok. i give up. where are they? please use the figures from Bush's 2003 SOTU as your target.

nd you have no idea how Iraq will turn out

nor do you.

I did pay attention to the drivel of tyronen, Jeffrey.

"The Afghanistan war wasn't enough; it was too small, fought mostly by foreign troops."

That's a lie. The US was the overwhelming force in Afghanistan. And I thought the liberal line was that we were acting unilaterally?

"Al Qaeda was a nebulous, slippery organization, best fought with painstaking, under-the-covers police work rather than big, conventional armies."

Is that why Clinton refused Sudan's offer for UBL, to keep up the great police work? Is that why Clinton lobbed missles into the aspirin factory, I didn't know police did that?

That was one of the more brain dead posts of the day.

机票|

href="http://www.boliway.cn/beijing/jipiao/index.html">北京机票

酒店
北京五星级酒店
北京四星级酒店
北京三星级酒店
北京酒店
如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店
可上网酒店

surely poll results like this should get the media pondering the question of whether they're doing a very good job of reporting what's really going on.

This kind of data has been around for awhile, albeit without the negative trend line. The media refuses to take repsonsibility for informing the audience.

The media presents misleading, but technically correct (if you read the weasel words) stories. As long as the media can say "technically correct" it then reverts to evaluating coverage based on complaints from the Right or the Left.

But the factual accuracy or the soundness of the logic in the complaints is not considered.

Kevin, do you really believe "centrist" corporate media types will be moved by polling that shows their audiences to be getting more ignorant and wrong? Who do you think will care in the media establishment? Fox? CNN? Disney? GE?

To the extent they even reflect on this I'll bet they blame the blogs for presenting info the audience wants to hear/read.

I would like to know why Americans more strongly believe this nonsense at the same that they also seem to more strongly believe that we ought to be getting out of Iraq. If someone could explain that to me, I'd be much obliged.

Has anyone here taken multiple choice exams?

The question is, "Did Iraq have WMDs", Since we now know that they had some old, degraded WMDs, the correct answer is "Yes."

Now, if the question were, "Did Iraq have new WMDs?" or "Did Iraq have effective WMDs?", or "Did Iraq have a lot of WMDs?", that would be a different story.

In short, a larger percentage of the public believes Iraq had WMDs because we finally found some.

Kevin,

Actually this has nothing to do with media reporting, but the continued hype and false propaganda of the rightwing media machine. Look Rush,Hannity, Malkin and all the other usual characters and how their emphasis has changed to bring about this perception.

Also this poll while indicating some increase is deeply flawed. Do more polling on this and you will find the true numbers are lower than what the Times reports but higher than the last low. As soon as the right wing machine stops re-emphasizing these lies awareness will again drop to bare bones levels.

.In addition, 64 percent say Saddam had "strong links" with al Qaeda..

The links between the Baathist regime and al Qaeda were like spider webs: exceedingly thin, almost invisible, and very strong -- quite sufficient for trapping unwary prey.

Samuel Knight 2:06 PM:

Part of it might be rationaization. Millions of Americans don't want to admit to themselves that they enthusiastically supported such an incredibly stupid policy. Millions don't want to admit that they were suckered.

And of course, the steadfast refusal of the Democrats to actually talk about the War in Iraq - why we made the mistakes we did, what our options are, etc., has left the field open for the right wing propagandists to keep spewing out their lies.

tyronen 2:09 PM:

People believe what they want to believe.

Don't 90% + of us believe in God?

nut:

And well over 70% of "us" believe in the literal existence of angels and demons.

Bob

its all about quilt. helps them sleep at, surely itw worth it cause...
america land of fleeced.

Establishment Media response:

"Well, I get criticized by the right and the left, so I must be getting it just right! {self-satisfied chuckle}"

Though actually, last night on Fresh Air, one of the LA Times WH correspondants effectively admitted that the Press Corps was badgered into timidity after 9/11.

In short, a larger percentage of the public believes Iraq had WMDs because we finally found some.

a "WMD" that is incapable of any D, let alone mass D, isn't much of a W - MD or not.

And well over 70% of "us" believe in the literal existence of angels and demons

i eagerly await the replies of "but a consensus doesn't make it a fact" from the same people who couldn't stop saying it yesterday.

This ignorance reminds me of the piece Walter Pincus wrote recently suggesting that the media stop reporting administration pronouncements that serve only as public relations; in other words, when they keep repeating lies so as to make them indelible in the public's minds.

An example is whenever aWol or his side-kick declares that progress is being made in Iraq. Instead of the media parroting these remarks, a "liar's gong" should loudly sound. Or, someone's nose would be noted to be growing.

Gotta love the Troll responses, which fall into two categories:

1) How do we know these (currently unsupported) beliefs won't be proven true tomorrow?

2) Well, Iraq did have WMD, even though it was a small amount of forgotten, degraded, and unuseable munitions from the 80's. So it's technically true.

Mind you, by the latter rationale we should invade Belgium. I'll bet if we dig enough we can find some forgotten, degraded, and unuseable mustard gas rounds from WWI in the fields of Flanders. Plus, we can free the Flemish from the Walloons. Or vice-versa; I'm not picky.

Kevin;
Ever hear of the term; "zeitgeist"?

"unwary prey"

Great definition of liberals.

You don't know for a fact that Iraq didn't have WMD, nd you have no idea how Iraq will turn out. Is it really so wrong if other Americans reach different conclusions than liberal bloggers?

This is yet another example of that peculiar magical thinking so popular today which is driven by a nihilistic epistemology that says we can't ever really "know" anything for sure, so it's only what we "believe" that counts.

The underlying principle is that even if all the facts in evidence utterly contradict one's beliefs on a given issue, one day new facts may come in -- so it's OK to believe anything at all, no matter how ridiculous, unsubstantiated, or insane.

Think Flat Earthers or Young Earthers.

And it's usually accompanied by a dusting of self-pity for believing in something that's contradicted by all the current facts and therefore unpopular, as well as tender sympathy for others who believe the same crazy shit.

And then finally you're often challenged to prove a negative, which of course you can't -- with the notable exception of Iraq, where hundreds of troops thorooughly searching full time for years couldn't even find evidence of a single banned weapons program, much less the weapons themselves.

And well over 70% of "us" believe in the literal existence of angels and demons.

I can't tell you how sad that makes me....

Sad, and wrong, Stefan.

I guess the popcorn kernals aren't close enough for Warren Terra.

its all about quilt. helps them sleep at, surely itw worth it cause...
america land of fleeced.

I'm not sure about this. It's pretty hot this summer. I have no problem sleeping without a quilt.

And well over 70% of "us" believe in the literal existence of angels and demons.

This is harmless of course, that is until Cheney declares that the demons have terrorist ties and WMD.

Maybe the simplest reason is: your arguments haven't been very effective?

Lucky then that truth is not democratic.

In the end the USA will leave one way or the other. And when the history books are written for the next generations it'll be based on the facts. Unfortuneatly nobody in the west will care anymore.

Reality has America on the run! Or is it the other way around?

Maybe the simplest reason is: your arguments haven't been very effective?

Isn't that what the rabble said to every prophet right before they were hanged/burned/drowned?

Shouldn't reality trump perception?

Americans: an incredibly stupid breed of animal, with an IQ falling somewhere between a one-celled amoeba and a four-legged jackass. No fucking excuse for this, not even the big bad media. What this poll shows, unfortunately, is that we have the leadership we deserve.

JJF:

No "fucking" excuse unless, of course, Saddam had al Qaeda ties / WMD, right?

"Americans: an incredibly stupid breed of animal, with an IQ falling somewhere between a one-celled amoeba and a four-legged jackass. No fucking excuse for this, not even the big bad media. What this poll shows, unfortunately, is that we have the leadership we deserve."

I agree completely, Howard Dean should be fired.

What optimist club do you belong to?

Saddam had NO al Qaeda ties or weapons of MASS destruction, you right-wing idiot!

I really just wanted to lurk today, but I just saw the following:

Did Hussein have WMD's? I believe he did but I cannot prove it. And if evidence ever emerges that he did not have them, I will accept that as the truth. As of now nobody knows with certainty.

I could not help but comment on the sheer motherfucking stupidity of this remark. Isn't it obvious, even to a Bush-bot, that a negative can never be proven? Isn't it enough that the overwhelming evidence would lead one to conclude, to a moral certainty, that Hussein did not have WMDs?

I really shouldn't go on like this, but stupidity of this astonishing magnitude really has to be admired publicly, otherwise it may hide in the shadows and corrupt the ability of people to reason at all.

Windhorse:

Excellent post, my man.

"Nihilistic epistemology," indeed.

There is nothing quite so hallucinatory as radical relativism out of the mouths of "moral clarity" conservatives.

And all for the sake of being able to shout at any contradicting fact set "well that's just YOUR opinion."

I swear to fucking christ this is the self-satisfied villagers who Zarathustra confronts.

The Last Men ... *sigh*

Bob

The question is, "Did Iraq have WMDs", Since we now know that they had some old, degraded WMDs, the correct answer is "Yes."

The actual statement tested in the poll is:

1. "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."

It was coupled with the following three statements (presumably asked in random order):

2. "The Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein."

3. "Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda."

4. "History will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq."

In short, the question of the truth value of statement (1) is not an isolated abstract logical question whether or not WMDs of any kind -- even those expired, disassembled, or found on blueprints -- existed in Iraq; in concert with the other questions it is testing the *justifications* GWB gave for going to war in Iraq.

So, unless you are prepared to argue that USAmericans believe that GWB took us to war because of useless, empty WMD canisters, they are indeed stating that WMDs sufficient to be a threat and a casus belli were in Iraq during the invasion.

Given the condition of the shells we found, the media should have called them WID's, Weapons Incapable of Destruction. The headlines calling them WMD's was just pandering to Bushco.

Hey, have any of you all seen the Earth from Space? Thought not? The fucker is flat, I'm sure of it. At least until it's proven otherwise anyway.

And since were being technical about the facts. Can one technically call old Sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction. Wouldn't a WMD have to actually be capable of causing mass destruction before it could be called such? Since chemical weapons can cause no more mass destruction than a typical bomb, I think our technical friends like ex-liberal have some splainin' to do.

Mayse the redeployment of troops in throesville will lead to an actual reality check for the 50.4% citizens of the scared states of ameica who elected this goat of a leader.

"I swear to fucking christ....."

A lot of class demonstrated here.

I didn't realize liberals were so religious.

What optimist club do you belong to?

The William F. Buckley Optimist Club. This week's newsletter quote on Bush's failure in Iraq:

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign."

"Military-industrial-corporate-Jesus complex." Love that. Snorri, if you don't mind, I'd like to use that...

Bill--yeah, but the difference here is that the Am. public isn't reconstructing the past to be more consistent with the present--it's becoming LESS so. At least, less consistent with the facts.

"And since were being technical about the facts. Can one technically call old Sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction. Wouldn't a WMD have to actually be capable of causing mass destruction before it could be called such? Since chemical weapons can cause no more mass destruction than a typical bomb, I think our technical friends like ex-liberal have some splainin' to do."

You might want to ask the Kurds how much destruction chemical gas can do.

"Mayse the redeployment of troops in throesville will lead to an actual reality check for the 50.4% citizens of the scared states of ameica who elected this goat of a leader."

Well at least you picked the right handle.

And in other news, George W Bush freed the slaves. Film at 11.

However tempting it may be to thwart Righty mind games with facts, it isn't going to work. Jay and Henry are playing with you guys. They don't even say that they believe the WMD crap anymore.

They are just being cheeky cause it aint their kids dying over there. They won the argument. They fooled everybody. They won. The fact that they won the booby prize of the century doesn't seem to phase them.

You might want to ask the Kurds how much destruction chemical gas can do.

Shaver, as a Bush supporter and a Republican, you probably shouldn't bring up the gassing of the Kurds. It might just remind some of us who sold Saddam his weaponry and on whose watch he used it.

Kevin wrote: ... poll results like this should get the media pondering the question of whether they're doing a very good job of reporting what's really going on.

Poll results like this tell the media that they are doing an excellent job of propagandizing the American people on behalf of the media's owners, America's ultra-rich, increasingly hereditary, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist ruling class, who are also the owners of the Bush administration and the beneficiaries of the Bush administration's project to establish American military dominance of Middle Eastern oil supplies.

I'm sure that the media will get an approving pat on the head from their owners as a result of this poll.

OK maybe 50.3999999%

"Amazing, isn't it?"

Not really.

This is because the RightWing Fake Media, like 'Fox News', the 'Washington Times', the 'New York Post', the 'Wall Street Journal Editorial Page', the 'Weekly Standard', the 'National Review', and RightWing radio, are treated as if they are real news outlets, instead of part of the RightWing propaganda machine.

How are the couch potatoes supposed to know the propaganda they are watching, reading, and listening to is gibberish, if it's allowed to be presented next to legitimate news outlets and given the same weight ?
.

rmck1: And well over 70% of "us" believe in the literal existence of angels and demons.

for what its worth...

Percent of Americans who believe aliens have contacted humans: 64%

Percent of Americans who believe George W. Bush: 37%

By all reporting, WMD's are evident everywhere, ie. whenever there is a bomb blast. Folks read about the bombs going off in Iraq daily, so they conclude, rightfully, that there are large weapons that kill many (WMD).

As for Hussein and Al Qaeda, well, AQ is now a large contingent in Iraq, according to unbiased observers like Juan Cole. They have been drawn to the quagmire like flies to dog poop.

So, a reasonable man, having read and watched the news reports over the past year, would conclude, yes there are big weapons wreaking havoc on the population, and yes, Al Qaeda is alive and well and looking to encourage civil war in Iraq.

I think the pollsters are now capturing reasonable conclusions from reasonably aware Americans, as distinct from the ignorant knee-jerk responses provided at the start of the invasion of Iraq.

"But you don't understand. We want to believe! (It's easier than thinking.)"

Jay:

>> "I swear to fucking christ....."

> A lot of class demonstrated here.

Actually, the class was demonstrated by the reference
to Fredreich Nietszche's Also Sprach Zarathustra.

I don't think that's come out in a Classic Comics edition yet.

Although Nietsczhe *did* give us the original notion of Superman :)

Bob

Wow! I didn't realize Go Fuck Yourself Cheney was such a class act. And what a classy president who says "shit" to his man, Tony, and called that there reporter guy an "asshole." Dignity and honor has so been restored to the Oval Office.

What would Dick Cheney say if he saw Jesus in the sky? Bob knows.

It's called cognitive dissonance. We're "at war" so there must be some reason why we're at war. And that reason is...

Kevin, it's worse than it appears. Not only do people believe factually incorrect facts, but as Michael Steele shows, Republicans are going to run (probably successfully) on what should be the Democratic Platform. And if a Democrat runs on that platform, he will be swiftboated into oblivion.

And frankly, yes, I do blame Scared, Greedy, Corrupt Incumbent Democrats for this problem.

"In short, a larger percentage of the public believes Iraq had WMDs because we finally found some." - ex-liberal

"a "WMD" that is incapable of any D, let alone mass D, isn't much of a W - MD or not." - cleek

And this, of course, gets to another important aspect of this story. cleek is right, of course, chemical munitions are not "weapons of mass destruction." They're battlefield munitions - bad ones, yes, but not an existential threat to the continental United States, unless Saddam had developed an Intercontinental Howitzer.

But most people are either not interested enough or informed enough to make this distinction. Bush and Company told everyone that Saddam had big, bad WMDs and spooked everyone with images of mushroom clouds.

We should have been focusing on the nukes issue all along, but if we had, there would have been no war. So chemicals and biologicals got conflated with "WMDs" and most people were either unwilling or unable to make a distinction.

You might want to ask the Kurds how much destruction chemical gas can do.

At the time the CIA, DIA, and State Department were pretty sure the Iranians did it.

Are you telling me that the Reagan administration couldn't be trusted to tell us the truth. What would their motive be for lying.

And why, pray tell, would the current administration get the DIA and CIA to revise their findings in 2003. What possible motive?

It couldn't be domestic propoganda for political purposes. The way I figue, W has a plan for us all. It's just sometimes too easy to get bogged down in the details and fail to see the higher purpose.

"They are just being cheeky cause it aint their kids dying over there."

Why the sudden concern for life from liberals?

"Shaver, as a Bush supporter and a Republican, you probably shouldn't bring up the gassing of the Kurds. It might just remind some of us who sold Saddam his weaponry and on whose watch he used it."

Much like the nuclear technology obtained by Kim Jung. I wonder who supplied him with that knowledge? Hmmm...............

republicrat wrote: The links between the Baathist regime and al Qaeda were like spider webs: exceedingly thin, almost invisible, and very strong -- quite sufficient for trapping unwary prey.

And your evidence for this assertion would be...?

As for "ex-liberal," even leaving aside the inherent dishoensty of the "WMD" phrase -- the intent to conflate nuclear weapons, which are an existential threat, with chemical weapons, which are not -- the ancient, rusting shells with degraded, useless chemical weapons, left over and quite literally forgotten, may have been "chemical" but they were in no sense "weapons."

Incidentally, I for one never claimed Saddam had no chemical weapons -- simply that he had no weapons that were a threat to the United States (recall, as well, that Bush had to posit an entirely imaginary additional scenario of Saddam providing whatever weapons he might have to terrorists). The notion that Saddam had no WMDs is a perception that arose, frankly, from the fact that we invaded and found that he did, in fact, have none.

Here's an odd thing: While I'd like everyone to be better informed about facts and expert consensus, it strikes me that the news media is not necessarily best suited to do this, in the sense that when things are happening, it's news, but afterwards, it's history. What's newsworthy is that so many people are being deceived by interest groups, but when this becomes noticeable, it's a bit late. Should we expect the newspapers to run monthly issues with headlines like "Evolution still supported by scientific research, 150 years later", "WMDs still nonexistent in Iraq", or "Presence of angels, aliens on Earth still unproven"? Unfortunately, this may be needed, what with so much misinformation going around. . .

It looks like you guys are losing this battle for the hearts and minds.

I swear to fucking christ this is the self-satisfied villagers who Zarathustra confronts.

Perfect literary reference for this phenomenon.

Although Nietsczhe *did* give us the original notion of Superman :)

Not only that, it's as if he were presciently aware of the coming of George W. Bush:

When Zarathustra had spoken these words, he again looked at the people, and was silent. "There they stand," said he to his heart; "there they laugh: they understand me not; I am not the mouth for these ears.

Must one first batter their ears, that they may learn to hear with
their eyes? Must one clatter like kettledrums and penitential
preachers? Or do they only believe the stammerer?

Spooky.

Wonderin':

Well, I wouldn't go quite as far with bioweapons -- which are very scary and actually IIRC haven't been deployed in modern combat. Closest I can think of to biowarfare is our miserable dishonor with the smallpox blankets to Native Americans -- and, oh, bombing civilian water and sanitation infrastructure so that cholera and typhus run rampant in the civilian population.

But weaponized germs -- we haven't gone there, and the potential is quite scary and indeed massive if the diseases caused are infectious in themselves (like smallpox) and thus spread well beyond their initial application.

I do think, though, that the problem with the poll has to do with a very slippery definition of "WMD" -- which unfortunately has become a content-free buzzword to most of the American public.

People hear it now and just think "real bad weapons."

Bob

In short, the question of the truth value of ["Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."] is not an isolated abstract logical question whether or not WMDs of any kind -- even those expired, disassembled, or found on blueprints -- existed in Iraq; in concert with the other questions it is testing the *justifications* GWB gave for going to war in Iraq.

So, unless you are prepared to argue that USAmericans believe that GWB took us to war because of useless, empty WMD canisters, they are indeed stating that WMDs sufficient to be a threat and a casus belli were in Iraq during the invasion.

Disputo has a good argument that the right answer is there were no WMDs. However, not everyone would read the question her/his way. ISTM it was an ambiguous question. Some responders would take the question literally, while others would agree with Disputo's interpretation. Given the ambiguity, I'm unwilling to criticize either answer. I'll reserve my criticism for the pollster who designed the ambiguous question.

The end result of everything being spun for political purposes. Or, the fact that half of the U.S. population has less than average IQ?

We report, you decide indeed.

It looks like you guys are losing this battle for the hearts and minds.

The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.

Rest assured that Jay and his ilk will pleasure the many glans of penis for all eternity

just who did harris poll? the one in three who still believe w is doing a great job? either that or mluther is right on the money. oh and al, you don't have a mind. you don't exist.

"Rest assured that Jay and his ilk will pleasure the many glans of penis for all eternity"

"Proof again that most liberals are unable to critique absent sexual innuendo

"...asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent."

Now this is a poll the liberals will buy hook, line and sinker. They also can't seem to figure
that the election is not today.

Jay -- that wasn't sexual innuendo, my poor benighted little arthropod -- that was *satire*.

And what you do with your Mistress is pure exhibitionism.

*wicked grin -- while holding a lead truncheon in one fist while thumping it rhythmically into her other hand*

See you when my fancy craves a little swollen-buttocked penetration ... dahhhlink.

*wink*

Disinfomation...

This poll doesn't pass the smell test.

Don't you libs see yet? It's not about facts! It about impression management directed at the low information voter.

Yours, of course, Jay, my squishable arachnid.

My new custom sis-polybudtadiene Dick Cheney-headed strap-on will be finished any day now ...

I want to get a T-shirt that says Low Information Voter.

Bob

Don't you libs see yet? It's not about facts! It about impression management directed at the low information voter.
Posted by: Sean Smith

No they see just fine. It's the fundies who have yet to realize the corporate socialists aka the neo-liberals they have empowered.

low information voter means fundie. The fundies know that bushco screwed them, the fundies will back the war democrats and the repubs will be looking at some jail time. Fundies, hate to be lie too, and they hate to be ripped off.

'We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.'

"Yours, of course, Jay, my squishable arachnid.

My new custom sis-polybudtadiene Dick Cheney-headed strap-on will be finished any day now ..."

It doesn't take much to unhinge some of the posters here.

You know it's not so much that Rove is a genious, it's that you guys are really that stupid. You just have to press the right buttons.

Jay:

I can't believe you quoted that, man ...

*snickering helplessly*

Bob

So Horace, do you consider many in Louisiana high information voters? Afterall, it's a democratically controlled state and they just recently re-elected Nagin.

High information voter indeed.

Maybe people are just in denial, who knows?

How could Hitler get away with it all and people could say, they did not know? There was a time when I did not believe they did not know, but I do have doubts now. There was no free press, no TV.
We claim we have a free press, we do have the internet, there are books, 7/24 cabel news and still people don't know?

You know it's not so much that Rove is a genious,
----------------------------
It doesn't take a genius to lie,many of the best liars are con-men and sociopaths.

Maybe if rove solved some monumental problem facing mankind, he might deserve the name 'genius', he is nothing more than a clever and crooked hack.

Only a republican could call that 'genius'

Jay and his ilk are truly my ball-less, soul-less, discorporate little bitches.

when you headline a story about a poll such as this one, should you not provide a link to the poll itself, rather than to a report about it? especially one in the washington times?

So Horace, do you consider many in Louisiana high information voters?

About as many as I do in Washington....

...surely poll results like this should get the media pondering the question of whether they're doing a very good job of reporting what's really going on...

WAKE UP, KD!!! Don't put any faith in any mainstream media.

Big Media (basically corporate owned TEE-VEE and large newspapers) in the chase for ratings and advertising cash are merely public relations/propaganda conduits of the wealthy elites who -- in global pursuit of money and power -- have made a devil's pact with the worst strains of American life, i.e., white trash of all colors (religious nut cases, crypto-racists, xenophobes, etc). The result: a disengaged, delusional, and increasingly mean-spirited population.

Watch "Fox and Friends" in the morning to get an laughable and bone-chilling example of how the mechanics of this new fascism works in practice. But Fox is merely the most debased. VIACOM-CBS, GE-NBC, DISNEY-ABC are simply watered down versions of the same agenda.

We will either become radicalized or enslaved.

"Jay and his ilk are truly my ball-less, soul-less, discorporate little bitches"

High information voters indeed.

Jay, in my dominion there is no vote. I will relish the taste of your wormy flesh!

we aren't talking about 'states' here, we are talking about propaganda, as you said impression management accomplished thru the boob tube.

What state it is hardly matters, the low infos work in many different jobs, many are educated folks whom watch that crap.

"Low information" is the current mainstream media trend and has been. Low Brow Fux News

Owl of Minerva and Horace:

I take it you haven't seen the pro-Arab Sheppard Smith broadcasting lately?

"Jay, in my dominion there is no vote. I will relish the taste of your wormy flesh"

I just had no idea how religious liberals were. No wonder you sympathize with the theocratic jihadist movement.

Washington is actually a great example of someone "stealing" an election.

Democrat Christine Gregoire petitioned the recount to have it halted after the first one deemed her the winner by a hair. That one seems to be forgotten. Hmmmm............

I imagine the history books are written by the same ilk as those that pass for heads of media these days?

If so, Bush will be our generations George Washington. Portraits of him standing leader-like in a boat, crossing some water, oars manned by the last bastions of his GOP supporters will hang in our schools and public places in the dusty squares where the 10 commandments used to be.

History is working itself up to immortalizing Monkey Boy as evidenced by the paper trail Fox News is leaving in its wake.

More people believe the bullshit now than last year because more US kids have died in Iraq. It's the retroactive need to justify the sacrifice.

JJF:

We shall see.

enozinho:

I am not just being cheeky because "it ain't my kids dying over there". Since you are the one who cannot prove a negative, that's why we've won the argument. I also don't think that "fool[ing] everybody" or the "booby prize of the century".

Wow, I am changing political parties from L to R so I can magically and suddenly know everything about domestic AND global politics like Jay and Sean Smith. You guys are amazing, with your dazzling whiplash comebacks and your in situ world view. Too many Republicans know all, speak all, and feel they know what is best for the rest of humanity, like they have some extra GOP gland that gives them an intellectual edge. Gack! Sorry, hair ball.

Jerry
"And frankly, yes, I do blame Scared, Greedy, Corrupt Incumbent Democrats for this problem..."

as opposed to Un-scared, Un-greedy, Un-corrupt Incumbent Republicans?

Jay : "Much like the nuclear technology obtained by Kim Jung. I wonder who supplied him with that knowledge? Hmmm..............."

Actually, it was AQ Kahn.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/khan-dprk.htm

Your point?

Jay: You don't seem to have understood my point. The Afghan war was a much smaller effort than the Iraq war. It was not large enough to satisfy Americans' emotional need to strike back. American involvement in the fall of 2001 was mostly from the air and Special Forces behind the scenes - most of the ground fighting was done by the Northern Alliance.

That was why Americans convinced themselves of Saddam's role in 9/11, because they wanted an enemy who could be defeated by familiar, conventional warfare.

Not sure what you are trying to say about Clinton, whom I didn't even mention in my original post.

Scot: "American exceptionalism demands a steady diet of fairy tales."

And a touch of personal scandal, too, preferably when it involves a Democrat's sex life.

But if it's a Republican's sexual perversity that comes to a sorry light, well, you just need to move on -- nothing to see here!

Since you are the one who cannot prove a negative, that's why we've won the argument.

Ok, I've gone through this thread and read all of the comments from Henry and Jay. There is a lot of snark, but not once do either one of you guys actually claim to believe the WMD claims held by 50% of Americans.

So, what is your position exactly? Because it seems like you guys are just playing around, willing to perpetuate something you don't even believe because helps you win an argument. Talk about mental masturbation.

Denial's not just a river in Egypt.

Maybe 230 years just isn't enough experience to create a thoughtful body politic. Instead Americans are akin to children who shut their eye, stomp their feet, and chant "Don't want to, don't want to, don't want to ..."

Don't want to admit they were afraid.

Don't want to admit they were duped.

Don't want to admit they voted for a war-mongering, voice-listening, addlepated bully--twice.

"American public becomes ever more withdrawn from reality."

This is a direct result of the LYING JEWS who infest blogs like this one, not for reasoned debate, but to make you believe LIES.

Lies like: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003.

Jews are ORGANIZED LIARS.

Jews push these lies on you through their press and by their use of blogs like this one (among other things).

Watch,... you can see it happening all around you.

I got your point tyronen, I just don't agree with it. The claim that "Americans convinced themselves of Saddam's role in 9/11", is another lie. Just like your claim that the vast majority of fighters in Afghanistan were from the Northern Alliance, whatever that is. btw, I didn't think there was much of an alliance according to the left. The US armed forces took out the Taliban essentially by themselves.

I could not care less if Saddam had WMD's. He proved that he did have them at one time, and used them, that's enough for me. Secondly, Saddam violated every UN resolution stemming from his invasion of Kuwait over a twelve year period, again enough for me. Anyone who denies this conflict has had their head in the sand for over thirty years. Extreme Islam has been at war with the west since Munich (or possibly earlier) and we're just now figuring that out.

Saddam, UBL, Ahmendijad, Zarqawi, Assad, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. etc. are all indirectly linked together in the global jihad against the west and they will not stop. They continue to kill whether we're in the middle of diplomacy or in the middle of war. They don't care.

Wonderin on July 25, 2006 at 4:00 PM had it right, I believe.

The term "WMD" was created in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq to lump chemical weapons (which Iraq clearly had at one time) with biological weapons (worse) and nuclear weapons (bad big-time). So, the thinking goes, we'll scare everyone with the WMD mushroom cloud and say we found the WMD when we find the old chemical weapons.

Worked, didn't it?

Jay

Very weak channelling of Michael Savage. You know you can do better.

enozinho:

My "position exactly" is that we may never know for sure if Saddam had stockpiles of, or programs for producing WMD -- at the time, the best public guess of every intelligence agency in the world was that he did -- the evidence to date does not disprove that assessment.

Cal Gal:

Are you claiming that the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was never uttered in public before 9/11/01?