Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Americans in Poll shown to be Hideously Misled
Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11
Many misinformed about banned weapons,A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.
Many misinformed about banned weapons,A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.
(Knight Ridder)
WASHINGTON - A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.
But no such weapons have been found, nor is there evidence they were used recently in Iraq.
Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001. But most of them were from Saudi Arabia. None were Iraqis.
How could so many people be so wrong about information that has dominated the news for nearly two years?
The poll results startled the pollsters who conducted and analyzed the surveys.
"It's a striking finding," said Steve Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which asked the weapons questions during a May 14-18 poll of 1,265 respondents.
"Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention," he said, "this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts.
Kull said the poll's data showed the mistaken belief that weapons of mass destruction were found "is substantially greater among those who favored the war."
Pollsters and political analysts see several reasons for the gap between fact and belief: the public's short attention span on foreign news, fragmentary or conflicting media reports that lacked depth or skepticism, and Bush administration efforts to sell a war by oversimplifying the threat.
"Most people get little whiffs and fragments of news, not in any organized way," said Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank. "And there have been a lot of conflicting reports on the weapons."
Polls show support for Bush and the war, though 40 percent in the May survey found U.S. officials were "misleading" in some of their justifications for war. A majority, 55 percent, said they were not misleading.
The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
WASHINGTON - A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.
But no such weapons have been found, nor is there evidence they were used recently in Iraq.
Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001. But most of them were from Saudi Arabia. None were Iraqis.
How could so many people be so wrong about information that has dominated the news for nearly two years?
The poll results startled the pollsters who conducted and analyzed the surveys.
"It's a striking finding," said Steve Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which asked the weapons questions during a May 14-18 poll of 1,265 respondents.
"Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention," he said, "this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts.
Kull said the poll's data showed the mistaken belief that weapons of mass destruction were found "is substantially greater among those who favored the war."
Pollsters and political analysts see several reasons for the gap between fact and belief: the public's short attention span on foreign news, fragmentary or conflicting media reports that lacked depth or skepticism, and Bush administration efforts to sell a war by oversimplifying the threat.
"Most people get little whiffs and fragments of news, not in any organized way," said Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank. "And there have been a lot of conflicting reports on the weapons."
Polls show support for Bush and the war, though 40 percent in the May survey found U.S. officials were "misleading" in some of their justifications for war. A majority, 55 percent, said they were not misleading.
The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
We kept hearing of 70% support for Bush regimes war plans but in this article it seems to say that one third of those polled believed WMDs have been found and used against American troops and that these were respondents were/are the supporters of the war.
"WASHINGTON - A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons. "
"Kull said the poll's data showed the mistaken belief that weapons of mass destruction were found "is substantially greater among those who favored the war." "
If this is true it seems to suggest that 33% or 1/3 of the public supported the invasion not 70% as was spewed forth by the regime.
But the article continues:
"Polls show support for Bush and the war, though 40 percent in the May survey found U.S. officials were "misleading" in some of their justifications for war. A majority, 55 percent, said they were not misleading. "
Are they trying to say 95% support the regimes adventure in Iraq the 55% who march in lockstep with the regime, and or is it including the 40% who believe they were lied to? If so they are way off the mark.
"WASHINGTON - A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons. "
"Kull said the poll's data showed the mistaken belief that weapons of mass destruction were found "is substantially greater among those who favored the war." "
If this is true it seems to suggest that 33% or 1/3 of the public supported the invasion not 70% as was spewed forth by the regime.
But the article continues:
"Polls show support for Bush and the war, though 40 percent in the May survey found U.S. officials were "misleading" in some of their justifications for war. A majority, 55 percent, said they were not misleading. "
Are they trying to say 95% support the regimes adventure in Iraq the 55% who march in lockstep with the regime, and or is it including the 40% who believe they were lied to? If so they are way off the mark.
Bush's approval has dropped from 73% in April when he declared the war to be over to 57% recently, showing that he is indeed very vulnerable, and nothing has caused his rating to rise besides wars, and according to Rove, they can't have another before the next election:
So Mobilize.
So Mobilize.
"How could so many people be so wrong about information that has dominated the news for nearly two years?"
The answer is obvious: They're STUPID!
(It's kind of like, "The emperor has no cloths.")
The answer is obvious: They're STUPID!
(It's kind of like, "The emperor has no cloths.")
(Like our Prez said) "Don't Mis-Underestimate" the power of money. Like it or not, businesses own the minds of a lot of people. They control what news to be broadcast, how and when. Apparently, there're a lot of people who complain about what's going on, but they hardly do anything to get to the truth.
Please ask Congress to establish an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the distortion of evidence right now, at:
http://www.moveon.org/distortion/
Complete message from MoveOn.org for your information:
Dear MoveOn member,
The President took the nation to war based on his assertion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our country. Now the evidence that backed that assertion is falling apart. Richard Butler, the chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s and a supporter of the war, recently wrote, "Clearly a decision had been taken to pump up the case against Iraq." (1)
If the Bush administration distorted intelligence or knowingly used false data to support the call to war, it would be an unprecedented deception. Even if weapons are now found, it'll be difficult to justify pre-war language that indicated that the exact location of the weapons was known and that they were ready to deploy at a moment's notice. With a crisis of credibility brewing abroad and the integrity of our President and our foreign policy on the line, we need answers now.
Please ask Congress to establish an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the distortion of evidence right now, at:
http://www.moveon.org/distortion/
On March 17th, in the eve of the Iraq war, President Bush told the American people that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (2) White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said simply, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." (3) And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elaborated: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (4)
Now, after two months of searching by the most skilled teams in the military, not a single piece of solid evidence of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs in Iraq has been found. The top 87 sites identified by U.S. Central Command have turned up only vacuum cleaners, a swimming pool for Iraq's Olympic team, and a license plate factory. (5)
Officials in the CIA and other intelligence agencies have complained for months that they have been under pressure to "cook the books" on Iraq intelligence. (6) Worse, a number of the key pieces of evidence that the Bush administration has released have come unraveled:
The President's State of the Union claim that Iraq possessed an active nuclear program was based on fraudulent documents that included the forged signature of an official that weren't even in office at the time. (7)
The dossier that Prime Minister Blair and Secretary Powell relied upon in critical presentations turned out to have been partially plagiarized from a graduate student's paper from 12 years ago. (8)
The claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, first made by Prime Minister Tony Blair, now appears to have been fabricated. (9)
The administration's claim that two tractor trailer trucks found in Iraq housed "mobile weapons labs" has now been disputed by numerous experts inside and outside of the military. An official British investigation has concluded that the trailer trucks were "exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." (10)
A President may make no more important decision than whether or not to take a country to war. If Bush and his officials deceived the American public to create support for the Iraq war, they need to be held accountable. Join the call now at:
http://www.moveon.org/distortion/
Sincerely,
--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn Team
June 16th, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/distortion/
Complete message from MoveOn.org for your information:
Dear MoveOn member,
The President took the nation to war based on his assertion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our country. Now the evidence that backed that assertion is falling apart. Richard Butler, the chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s and a supporter of the war, recently wrote, "Clearly a decision had been taken to pump up the case against Iraq." (1)
If the Bush administration distorted intelligence or knowingly used false data to support the call to war, it would be an unprecedented deception. Even if weapons are now found, it'll be difficult to justify pre-war language that indicated that the exact location of the weapons was known and that they were ready to deploy at a moment's notice. With a crisis of credibility brewing abroad and the integrity of our President and our foreign policy on the line, we need answers now.
Please ask Congress to establish an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the distortion of evidence right now, at:
http://www.moveon.org/distortion/
On March 17th, in the eve of the Iraq war, President Bush told the American people that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (2) White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said simply, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." (3) And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elaborated: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (4)
Now, after two months of searching by the most skilled teams in the military, not a single piece of solid evidence of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs in Iraq has been found. The top 87 sites identified by U.S. Central Command have turned up only vacuum cleaners, a swimming pool for Iraq's Olympic team, and a license plate factory. (5)
Officials in the CIA and other intelligence agencies have complained for months that they have been under pressure to "cook the books" on Iraq intelligence. (6) Worse, a number of the key pieces of evidence that the Bush administration has released have come unraveled:
The President's State of the Union claim that Iraq possessed an active nuclear program was based on fraudulent documents that included the forged signature of an official that weren't even in office at the time. (7)
The dossier that Prime Minister Blair and Secretary Powell relied upon in critical presentations turned out to have been partially plagiarized from a graduate student's paper from 12 years ago. (8)
The claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, first made by Prime Minister Tony Blair, now appears to have been fabricated. (9)
The administration's claim that two tractor trailer trucks found in Iraq housed "mobile weapons labs" has now been disputed by numerous experts inside and outside of the military. An official British investigation has concluded that the trailer trucks were "exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." (10)
A President may make no more important decision than whether or not to take a country to war. If Bush and his officials deceived the American public to create support for the Iraq war, they need to be held accountable. Join the call now at:
http://www.moveon.org/distortion/
Sincerely,
--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn Team
June 16th, 2003
And even if this is a problem is for some of you - most Americans are fair and see the whole picture - so how about these apples?
Give inspectors more time to find weapons of mass destruction
By JONATHAN GURWITZ
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
SAN ANTONIO -- It wasn't long ago that no one disagreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Not congressional Republicans and Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted last October to use military force against Iraq because it "had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large-scale biological weapons program and an advanced nuclear weapons development program."
Not the U.N. Security Council, which unanimously passed Resolution 1441 in November recognizing Iraq's "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
Not President Clinton, who told the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff in 1998 that Iraq had "an offensive biological warfare capability -- notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs."
And certainly not the Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians who had been victims of Saddam's chemical weapons in the past.
The only questions that remained by the end of 2002 were: What had Saddam done with those weapons after he threw U.N. inspectors out of Iraq in 1998; and how much time was the international community willing to give a new inspections regime created under Resolution 1441?
Yet now, some people are claiming to be wiser than Solomon, wiser than Congress, wiser than 15 U.N. ambassadors, wiser than Clinton, George W. Bush and Hans Blix in knowing that those weapons of mass destruction never existed.
It says something about the ideological motivations and allegiances of such people that after only two months of searches, they are ready to declare conclusively that the weapons issue was a propaganda tool. Yet after four months of U.N. inspections, they demanded more time to search for weapons -- weapons they now claim never existed.
None of which would detract from the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. Saddam was required not only to destroy his weapons of mass destruction, but to do so in a way that could be verified by the United Nations.
Resolution 687, adopted by the Security Council on April 3, 1991, clearly called for Iraq to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision" of all weapons of mass destruction.
In the unlikely event that Saddam destroyed his weapons on the honor system while no one was looking, he was still flaunting the Security Council and inviting the most severe consequences.
Then there's the untidy fact of those mass graves that keep popping up across the Iraqi landscape, filled with men, women and children who were slaughtered by the Baathist regime. The moral case for the removal of Hussein may not have been the primary motive the administration enunciated at the United Nations, but to many people with a sense of humanity it was the most compelling.
The failure to discover significant evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction at this point does begin to raise some difficult issues.
Yes, it's possible that Bush and his advisers cherry-picked intelligence reports to create a threat assessment that was unrealistic. If so, they were the same intelligence reports that guided the Clinton administration and our European allies.
Which points to the possibility of a second, monumental failure of U.S. intelligence, in addition to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Whether Saddam destroyed his weapons and we didn't know it, passed those weapons on to other countries or terrorist groups or hid them so skillfully that we can't find them, each possibility augurs poorly for the efficacy of our intelligence-gathering capabilities in a dangerous world.
We haven't yet found Saddam or his two evil spawn, who collectively comprised the greatest Iraqi weapon of mass destruction. Yet no sane person would argue that they never existed or that their crimes were manufactured by an American administration hellbent on war.
Let's give the U.S.-led military inspectors at least as much time and leeway as U.N. inspectors before drawing conclusions, while at the same time beginning to ask important questions about the integrity of the U.S. intelligence community.
Jonathan Gurwitz is a columnist for the San Antonio Express-News. E-mail: jmgur [at] swbell.net
Give inspectors more time to find weapons of mass destruction
By JONATHAN GURWITZ
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
SAN ANTONIO -- It wasn't long ago that no one disagreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Not congressional Republicans and Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted last October to use military force against Iraq because it "had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large-scale biological weapons program and an advanced nuclear weapons development program."
Not the U.N. Security Council, which unanimously passed Resolution 1441 in November recognizing Iraq's "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
Not President Clinton, who told the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff in 1998 that Iraq had "an offensive biological warfare capability -- notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs."
And certainly not the Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians who had been victims of Saddam's chemical weapons in the past.
The only questions that remained by the end of 2002 were: What had Saddam done with those weapons after he threw U.N. inspectors out of Iraq in 1998; and how much time was the international community willing to give a new inspections regime created under Resolution 1441?
Yet now, some people are claiming to be wiser than Solomon, wiser than Congress, wiser than 15 U.N. ambassadors, wiser than Clinton, George W. Bush and Hans Blix in knowing that those weapons of mass destruction never existed.
It says something about the ideological motivations and allegiances of such people that after only two months of searches, they are ready to declare conclusively that the weapons issue was a propaganda tool. Yet after four months of U.N. inspections, they demanded more time to search for weapons -- weapons they now claim never existed.
None of which would detract from the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. Saddam was required not only to destroy his weapons of mass destruction, but to do so in a way that could be verified by the United Nations.
Resolution 687, adopted by the Security Council on April 3, 1991, clearly called for Iraq to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision" of all weapons of mass destruction.
In the unlikely event that Saddam destroyed his weapons on the honor system while no one was looking, he was still flaunting the Security Council and inviting the most severe consequences.
Then there's the untidy fact of those mass graves that keep popping up across the Iraqi landscape, filled with men, women and children who were slaughtered by the Baathist regime. The moral case for the removal of Hussein may not have been the primary motive the administration enunciated at the United Nations, but to many people with a sense of humanity it was the most compelling.
The failure to discover significant evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction at this point does begin to raise some difficult issues.
Yes, it's possible that Bush and his advisers cherry-picked intelligence reports to create a threat assessment that was unrealistic. If so, they were the same intelligence reports that guided the Clinton administration and our European allies.
Which points to the possibility of a second, monumental failure of U.S. intelligence, in addition to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Whether Saddam destroyed his weapons and we didn't know it, passed those weapons on to other countries or terrorist groups or hid them so skillfully that we can't find them, each possibility augurs poorly for the efficacy of our intelligence-gathering capabilities in a dangerous world.
We haven't yet found Saddam or his two evil spawn, who collectively comprised the greatest Iraqi weapon of mass destruction. Yet no sane person would argue that they never existed or that their crimes were manufactured by an American administration hellbent on war.
Let's give the U.S.-led military inspectors at least as much time and leeway as U.N. inspectors before drawing conclusions, while at the same time beginning to ask important questions about the integrity of the U.S. intelligence community.
Jonathan Gurwitz is a columnist for the San Antonio Express-News. E-mail: jmgur [at] swbell.net
Patriots call for Bush's impeachment
USA Patriot Act could be a two-edged sword for Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell
Washington, D.C. -- (OfficialSpin.com) -- 13/06/03 -- H. R. 3162, enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress was intended to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes, shortly after the tragic events of 9/11, on 24 October 2001.
According to the Act, which was ushered through Congress by the Bush Administration, it is a violation of the Act, "Whoever willfully ...conveys or causes to be conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this..."
It is a violation of U.S. federal criminal law, including the broad U.S. federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause.
Let's try to put matters into perspective. President Bill Clinton was impeached (although not convicted) based on allegations that he lied about having sex with a White House intern. Serious stuff.
President Bush and his lieutenants are alleged to have lied about facts which have caused the death of many thousands of people, including American citizens, the attempted assassination of the leader of Iraq (whose fate is still unknown), the unwarranted attack against another sovereign nation, the unlawful detainment of thousands outside the reach of the U.S. justice system, all of which has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Given that Afghanistan was not recognised by many countries, what was and continues to be done there in the name of Freedom, is left to your own description.
For the record, Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- United Nations address, September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -- Radio address, October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminium tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -- State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -- Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
Bush's let-me-mince-no-words delivery was convincing to many Americans. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell are guilty of assisting in the dissemination of the false information both before and after the act. However, the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.
Now, we know the truth and Americans must take the appropriate action. All we are saying, is give impeachment a chance.
http://www.officialspin.com/
USA Patriot Act could be a two-edged sword for Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell
Washington, D.C. -- (OfficialSpin.com) -- 13/06/03 -- H. R. 3162, enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress was intended to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes, shortly after the tragic events of 9/11, on 24 October 2001.
According to the Act, which was ushered through Congress by the Bush Administration, it is a violation of the Act, "Whoever willfully ...conveys or causes to be conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this..."
It is a violation of U.S. federal criminal law, including the broad U.S. federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause.
Let's try to put matters into perspective. President Bill Clinton was impeached (although not convicted) based on allegations that he lied about having sex with a White House intern. Serious stuff.
President Bush and his lieutenants are alleged to have lied about facts which have caused the death of many thousands of people, including American citizens, the attempted assassination of the leader of Iraq (whose fate is still unknown), the unwarranted attack against another sovereign nation, the unlawful detainment of thousands outside the reach of the U.S. justice system, all of which has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Given that Afghanistan was not recognised by many countries, what was and continues to be done there in the name of Freedom, is left to your own description.
For the record, Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- United Nations address, September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -- Radio address, October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminium tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -- State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -- Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
Bush's let-me-mince-no-words delivery was convincing to many Americans. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell are guilty of assisting in the dissemination of the false information both before and after the act. However, the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.
Now, we know the truth and Americans must take the appropriate action. All we are saying, is give impeachment a chance.
http://www.officialspin.com/
AP Corrects Iraq Weapons Story
Tue Jun 17, 8:22 AM ET
WASHINGTON - In a June 15 story about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites), The Associated Press reported erroneously that two-thirds of Americans said the administration exaggerated the weapons threat.
The poll by CBS News found that 44 percent of Americans believe the administration overestimated the extent of Iraq's weapons stores, and that two-thirds of those people felt the administration exaggerated the threat from those weapons.
(so that means instead of 66% of the Americans polled, only 29% polled felt the administration exaggerated the threat from those weapons - big difference!)
Tue Jun 17, 8:22 AM ET
WASHINGTON - In a June 15 story about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites), The Associated Press reported erroneously that two-thirds of Americans said the administration exaggerated the weapons threat.
The poll by CBS News found that 44 percent of Americans believe the administration overestimated the extent of Iraq's weapons stores, and that two-thirds of those people felt the administration exaggerated the threat from those weapons.
(so that means instead of 66% of the Americans polled, only 29% polled felt the administration exaggerated the threat from those weapons - big difference!)
True. I don't trust the poll because the public have been misinformed by the White House and the U.S. media.
I would be very interested in finding out how many of these same surveyed people believe they have also been fooled twice or more?
I would be very interested in finding out how many of these same surveyed people believe they have also been fooled twice or more?
It is shameful that Americans don't pay much attention to these things. But it ultimately doesn't really matter. The people don't make decisions on how to act on this info. They elect people to do that for them.
It's also shameful that about the same percentage who do have a clue about what's happening is about the same percentage as those who vote. Let's hope they are the same people...
It's also shameful that about the same percentage who do have a clue about what's happening is about the same percentage as those who vote. Let's hope they are the same people...
Ditto. Many American sometime feel that no one else live on this planet except them American. We American all know about good neighbor policy within our state lines, then why we know nothing about good neigbor policy beyond our borders.
Take a moment. Sit back and listen to others. Are we being a good worldly neigbor to others? Shouldn't we?
If any one thinks that U.S. is being a good neigbor, then why the rest of the world hate us?
Reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an international poll for the BBC say they have an unfavourable opinion of George W Bush.
The survey of 11 countries - for the television programme What The World Thinks of America, to be aired this week in the UK - revealed that 57% of the sample had a very unfavourable, or fairly unfavourable attitude towards the American President.
The figure rose to 60% when discounting the views of the American respondents.
The survey - conducted for the BBC by ICM and other international pollsters - gauged opinion towards US military, economic, cultural and political influence.
Over half the sample felt that the US was wrong to invade Iraq - this included 81% of Russian respondents, and 63% of the French response.
Thirty-seven per cent thought it right to invade - including 54% of the UK response, 74% of the US response and 79% of the Israeli sample.
Asked who is the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United States was rated higher than al-Qaeda by respondents in both Jordan (71%) and Indonesia (66%).
America was also rated more dangerous than two countries considered as "rogue states" by Washington.
It was rated more dangerous than Iran, by people in Jordan, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea and Brazil, and more dangerous than Syria by respondents all the countries, except for Australia, Israel and the United States.
Unloved?
The survey groups were also asked whether they felt that the American military did enough to avoid civilian casualties during conflicts.
Seventy per cent of the group as a whole thought the US could do more - with the majority in each country bar the United States saying that more could be done, including 73% of respondents in the UK, 74% in France and 57% in Israel.
However 70% of the American respondents said other countries did not appreciate how much America does to avoid civilian casualties.
The sample of over 11,000 respondents also showed negative attitudes about American initiatives, such as the war on terrorism and US efforts in the Middle-East.
Attitudes towards America as a whole, however, were a lot more favourable, with 50% expressing fairly or very favourable views, as opposed to 40% of unfavourable views.
That figure excludes Americans polled.
All interviews were carried out during May and June 2003.
Take a moment. Sit back and listen to others. Are we being a good worldly neigbor to others? Shouldn't we?
If any one thinks that U.S. is being a good neigbor, then why the rest of the world hate us?
Reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an international poll for the BBC say they have an unfavourable opinion of George W Bush.
The survey of 11 countries - for the television programme What The World Thinks of America, to be aired this week in the UK - revealed that 57% of the sample had a very unfavourable, or fairly unfavourable attitude towards the American President.
The figure rose to 60% when discounting the views of the American respondents.
The survey - conducted for the BBC by ICM and other international pollsters - gauged opinion towards US military, economic, cultural and political influence.
Over half the sample felt that the US was wrong to invade Iraq - this included 81% of Russian respondents, and 63% of the French response.
Thirty-seven per cent thought it right to invade - including 54% of the UK response, 74% of the US response and 79% of the Israeli sample.
Asked who is the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United States was rated higher than al-Qaeda by respondents in both Jordan (71%) and Indonesia (66%).
America was also rated more dangerous than two countries considered as "rogue states" by Washington.
It was rated more dangerous than Iran, by people in Jordan, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea and Brazil, and more dangerous than Syria by respondents all the countries, except for Australia, Israel and the United States.
Unloved?
The survey groups were also asked whether they felt that the American military did enough to avoid civilian casualties during conflicts.
Seventy per cent of the group as a whole thought the US could do more - with the majority in each country bar the United States saying that more could be done, including 73% of respondents in the UK, 74% in France and 57% in Israel.
However 70% of the American respondents said other countries did not appreciate how much America does to avoid civilian casualties.
The sample of over 11,000 respondents also showed negative attitudes about American initiatives, such as the war on terrorism and US efforts in the Middle-East.
Attitudes towards America as a whole, however, were a lot more favourable, with 50% expressing fairly or very favourable views, as opposed to 40% of unfavourable views.
That figure excludes Americans polled.
All interviews were carried out during May and June 2003.
If you don't trust Americans in polls, then you shouldn't trust foreigners either.
Example:
In a recent survey asking Europeans their view on this statement:
"Tomatoes don't have genes. Only genetically-engineered tomatoes have genes"
2/3 answered 'true' or 'don't know'
And this ignorance is influencing European lawmakers.
Finally, keep in mind that it can only be expected that the world will be weary of the planet's only superpower. Some are jealous, some are misled by government-controlled media, some don't understand our culture. And, yes, some have more rational reasons to not like us.
But just because a good chunk of respondents in some countries don't like the US doesn't necessarily mean anything. Afterall, a majority of Americans like Israel. And a majority of Americans think Iran is an awful place. This doesn't mean that Israel is perfect and that Iran should be destroyed.
Example:
In a recent survey asking Europeans their view on this statement:
"Tomatoes don't have genes. Only genetically-engineered tomatoes have genes"
2/3 answered 'true' or 'don't know'
And this ignorance is influencing European lawmakers.
Finally, keep in mind that it can only be expected that the world will be weary of the planet's only superpower. Some are jealous, some are misled by government-controlled media, some don't understand our culture. And, yes, some have more rational reasons to not like us.
But just because a good chunk of respondents in some countries don't like the US doesn't necessarily mean anything. Afterall, a majority of Americans like Israel. And a majority of Americans think Iran is an awful place. This doesn't mean that Israel is perfect and that Iran should be destroyed.
May I ask where you obtained your source of information on "Tomatoes don't have genes. Only genetically-engineered tomatoes have genes" and 2/3 answered 'true' or 'don't know'?
I saw it on a Powerpoint slide during a presentation when the EU was trying to determine its position on the Golden Rice - WHO debate.
I'll try to track down the study.
I'll try to track down the study.
European Commission study
Eurobarometer 46.1
http://issda.ucd.ie/documentation/eb/s2899cdb.pdf
The tomato gene question is on page 50
(which is the 55th page of the pdf)
Eurobarometer 46.1
http://issda.ucd.ie/documentation/eb/s2899cdb.pdf
The tomato gene question is on page 50
(which is the 55th page of the pdf)
"True. I don't trust the poll because the public have been misinformed by the White House and the U.S. media.
I would be very interested in finding out how many of these same surveyed people believe they have also been fooled twice or more?"
And then you cite a poll by the BBC? They don't mislead? Only the US media is biased?
Hmmm....
I would be very interested in finding out how many of these same surveyed people believe they have also been fooled twice or more?"
And then you cite a poll by the BBC? They don't mislead? Only the US media is biased?
Hmmm....
I believe the "only GM tomato has gene" is a joke. I believe the European on the average are a bit more informed and better educated in the field of life sciences. I suppose it's European humor.
There should be alot of similar studies.
here are some of the good statistical issues
Imagine, 75% of 1,000 respondents believe that X policy would inflict Y damage to Z; but how much of a difference would that result make to proponents and opponents of X if 600 out of those 750 people couldn't explain what X actually was on a follow-up question?
In a school sex and drugs survey so many 12 year boys regularly do heroin and have sex 3 times a day (with two 18 year old girls at once) that you won't believe it.
Survey asks how many drinks you have. Researcher then defines "drinking binge" as having 3 or more standard drinks at one sitting. That is 30 ml of pure alcohol. About 3 nips of spirits or 2 cans of beer.
Researcher can now publish results that say 50% of University students indulge in regular drinking binges.
Note that NO OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET regards 3 nips or two cans of beer as a "binge". So when they read the results (which appear on the TV) they all imagine that he is talking about 3 days of vomit and smashing glass, not a couple of glasses of wine over dinner.
That last one is a classic used by adgenda driven surveyors
A more complicated version of the 'drinking binge' definitional complication is in the grouping of findings. If you group together murder, pummeling bloody, beatings that cause bruises, and grabbing someone's hand for emphasis during a fight all as 'domestic abuse', you can get some pretty frightening domestic abuse statistics even though most of the statistic will be in the last catagory.
here are some of the good statistical issues
Imagine, 75% of 1,000 respondents believe that X policy would inflict Y damage to Z; but how much of a difference would that result make to proponents and opponents of X if 600 out of those 750 people couldn't explain what X actually was on a follow-up question?
In a school sex and drugs survey so many 12 year boys regularly do heroin and have sex 3 times a day (with two 18 year old girls at once) that you won't believe it.
Survey asks how many drinks you have. Researcher then defines "drinking binge" as having 3 or more standard drinks at one sitting. That is 30 ml of pure alcohol. About 3 nips of spirits or 2 cans of beer.
Researcher can now publish results that say 50% of University students indulge in regular drinking binges.
Note that NO OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET regards 3 nips or two cans of beer as a "binge". So when they read the results (which appear on the TV) they all imagine that he is talking about 3 days of vomit and smashing glass, not a couple of glasses of wine over dinner.
That last one is a classic used by adgenda driven surveyors
A more complicated version of the 'drinking binge' definitional complication is in the grouping of findings. If you group together murder, pummeling bloody, beatings that cause bruises, and grabbing someone's hand for emphasis during a fight all as 'domestic abuse', you can get some pretty frightening domestic abuse statistics even though most of the statistic will be in the last catagory.
Right, Abraham. I've been had. Those funny Europeans like to spend money on surveys and then, just for kicks, toss in a fake one every once in awhile. Get real.
About the EU surveys (from the EU website):
Since 1973, the European Commission has been monitoring the evolution of public opinion in the Member States, thus helping the preparation of texts, decision-making and the evaluation of its work.
Our surveys and studies address major topics concerning European citizenship: enlargement, social situation, health, culture, information technology, environment, the Euro, defence, etc.
Here is another report showing the consistency, over time, of Europeans' poor knowledge of genetic engineering (in case you didn't trust the results from the Irish government link):
http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ebs_177_en.pdf
(page 24 of the pdf)
About the EU surveys (from the EU website):
Since 1973, the European Commission has been monitoring the evolution of public opinion in the Member States, thus helping the preparation of texts, decision-making and the evaluation of its work.
Our surveys and studies address major topics concerning European citizenship: enlargement, social situation, health, culture, information technology, environment, the Euro, defence, etc.
Here is another report showing the consistency, over time, of Europeans' poor knowledge of genetic engineering (in case you didn't trust the results from the Irish government link):
http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ebs_177_en.pdf
(page 24 of the pdf)
I briefed through a few pages. The questions appear to consist of basic biology and bio-engineering disciplines. The Europeans seem to do quite well on the basic biology questions and not so on the biotech ones. It's a general survey.
It would interesting to see how the American would fare on such a survey. My predicition would be the American would score lower on the basic biology questions.
Thanks for the link. An intersting report.
In any case, politics is not biotech. However, the questionnaires illustrate people's vulnerability, and their opinion can be manipulated. It supports the fact that democracy demand true and accurate media reporting. U.S. media needs much improvement in informing and educating the public.
It would interesting to see how the American would fare on such a survey. My predicition would be the American would score lower on the basic biology questions.
Thanks for the link. An intersting report.
In any case, politics is not biotech. However, the questionnaires illustrate people's vulnerability, and their opinion can be manipulated. It supports the fact that democracy demand true and accurate media reporting. U.S. media needs much improvement in informing and educating the public.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network