April 26, 2004
People still believe in Iraq/al Qaeda links, WMD, and Santa
Before the war I honestly thought Iraq had WMD, but eventually I had to face facts. My hunch that if Saddam had nothing to hide he'd have been more forthcoming was wrong. My hunch that Bush wasn't so blindingly stupid as to bluff both the UN and Congress without solid evidence was also wrong. I've also got some nasty suspicions about why Santa Clause always looked like Dad when I snuck down Christmas Eve to spy.
Anyway, it looks like lots of Americans are still in denial. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks have just released their latest report on American beliefs about pre-war Iraq — the results haven't changed much since they first started running their surveys before the war started. (PIPA's press release and questionnaire are also available, as is my summary of their October report.)
The quick summary:
- 57% still think that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks.
- 45% believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found.
- 60% believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).
Where are these people getting these ideas? Oh wait, here it is:
- 56% percent said it was their impression that the Bush administration is claiming the US has found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda, and 38% perceived the administration saying the US has found clear evidence that just before the war, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
It's good to see they got at least one question right.
Posted by bug to Politics at April 26, 2004 12:18 AM | TrackBackSorry to be a complete simpleton, but *even if they did have WMD*, so what? I'm not sure -- are WMD against the law? If they are I know quite a few countries who definetely do posess them. The country I live in for a start. And god knows America has, in abundance. There's loads of countries who have WMD. Seems like different rules for different people to me. Here's one idea that'll help not really piss people off with your country and what it does: don't have different rules for different people and try and enforce them as that's a sure fire way to piss them off. Also, come to think of it, don't bomb them. That's another way to piss people off, if it does kill them, I'd guess.
Posted by: at April 28, 2004 4:26 AMMy memory is that Iraq was singled out for weapons inspections due to their invasion of Kuwait, so one simplistic metaphor is that of a convicted felon not being able to own a gun while non-convicted felons can. I'm not up on international law, but if Iraq had had WMD that would have been a clear violation of numerous UN resolutions specifically calling for Iraqi disarmament after the Persian Gulf War. If we had taken more time to make a case for war, if we hadn't repeatedly insulted our own allies, and if we didn't act like such arrogant cowboys I think we could have gone in with world opinion largely behind us. And if we had gone in and found a huge stockpile of WMD and nuclear program and everything else we claimed was there then Bush at least could have said "yes, I'm an arrogant SOB who thinks he's got all the answers, but at least I'm right." As it is, the message that's ringing loud and clear is "I'm an arrogant SOB who thinks he's got all the answers and I'm wrong. The difference between arrogance and hubris is the long fall that follows.
That said, I won't argue that there's a double-standard going on here, not least of all in the whole preemptive-strike policy we've got, not to mention all the times we've been the ones violating international law.
Posted by: Bug at May 20, 2004 2:12 AM