41% Americans are below what IQ?

[crozby 0]

Quote

what lowers our standing in the world community is our costant bickering among ourselves and that we continue to help ungratefull countries

No, it's not that. Its the torture, invasion of other countries, indiscriminate killing of innocents and pig-headed arrogance that's the problem.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As I clearly suggested, Bush isn't changing his mind 6 months later. Nor is the public.

In that 6 months UNSCOM and IAEA would have submitted final reports, making it very difficult for Bush to sell his WMD fairy stories to Congress and the US public.

Speaking of fairy tales.

You're saying that if the inspections had continued, and found nothing, that the American public and Congress would have still given Bush a blank check to start the war? I mean we're pretty knuckle headed bunch here in the States but I don't think we're that dense.

[nigel99 501]

Of course if Bush had waited 6 months then the UN would have either discredited the WMD stories (unlikely) or more likely approved a LEGAL war.

By having the UN involved the cost of the war to the US and UK would be lower as the burden would be shared across a broader platform.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

As I clearly suggested, Bush isn't changing his mind 6 months later. Nor is the public.

In that 6 months UNSCOM and IAEA would have submitted final reports, making it very difficult for Bush to sell his WMD fairy stories to Congress and the US public.

Speaking of fairy tales.

You're saying that if the inspections had continued, and found nothing, that the American public and Congress would have still given Bush a blank check to start the war? I mean we're pretty knuckle headed bunch here in the States but I don't think we're that dense.

Leading up to the invasion, I seem to recall a bunch of inspections concluding there were no WMDs.

This was actually a major beef I had with the administrations claims - "If you guys are so sure about Saddam's WMDs, then tell the inspectors where they are and go get them."

Instead, they amped up the rhetoric and sent the well-respected Colin Powell off to tell a tale of mobile labs heading off as UN inspectors approach.

Given the mood of the country, at that time, I'm pretty confident the administration could have attacked six months later, with overwhelming support on the homefront.

[wmw999 2,456]

Quote

Given the mood of the country, at that time, I'm pretty confident the administration could have attacked six months later, with overwhelming support on the homefront.

That's the problem with picking news sources carefully. I saw no such massive agreement with war. Of course, I probably have different friends and relatives, and listen to different news sources. I thought it was a dumb idea then, and I think it was a dumb idea now.

There was a massive upswelling of "you're unpatriotic if you don't support the president" at the time which got a lot of people to keep quiet. Which sucks.

Bush was doing OK after 9/11. He blew it all. His administration seems to be guiltier of listening to only the confirming evidence than any other before it.

That's how companies go down. The biggest strength of our country is the orderly succession -- it's hard to fuck things up too much in 8 years, and that's the most any chief executive can be in office. That's also why having family members run to "continue the legacy" is not a good idea. The reason we dont' have revolutions is our trust in the system of succession.

I kind of like the no-revolutions thing. When I was little we were kicked out of the country for a week during a revolution. It's an uprooting, which makes the people feel powerless, and that's not good.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Instead, they amped up the rhetoric and sent the well-respected Colin Powell off to tell a tale of mobile labs heading off as UN inspectors approach.

Good to have a player willing to take one for the team, eh?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Given the mood of the country, at that time, I'm pretty confident the administration could have attacked six months later, with overwhelming support on the homefront.

That's the problem with picking news sources carefully. I saw no such massive agreement with war.

It's not really about cherry picking news sources.

Read the sections from January 2003 through April 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Instead, they amped up the rhetoric and sent the well-respected Colin Powell off to tell a tale of mobile labs heading off as UN inspectors approach.

Good to have a player willing to take one for the team, eh?

Assuming he was in on it. Then again, you have previously made some pretty specious assumptions about him.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Good to have a player willing to take one for the team, eh?

Assuming he was in on it. Then again, you have previously assumed the worst about him.

One of my favorite quotes from Powell:
"I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!"

[wmw999 2,456]

January:

Quote

An early January 2003 poll showed rapidly decreasing support for an invasion,...Approximately 2 out of 3 respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately...Most polls showed that support for the invasion, depending on how the question is phrased, was at between 55-65% (58% according to CNN/USA Today, 57% according to the LA Times, and 67% according to Fox).[citation needed] However, the same polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see more evidence against Iraq, and for UN weapons inspections to continue before making an invasion. For example, an ABC news poll reported than only 10% of Americans favored giving the inspectors less than a few weeks; 41% favored giving them a few weeks, 33% a few months, and 13% more than that....A consistent pattern in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion was that higher percentages of the population supported the impending war in polls that offered only two options (for or against) than in polls that broke down support into three or more options given (distinguishing unconditional support for the war, opposition to the war even if weapons inspectors do their job, and support if and only if inspection crews are allowed time to investigate first).

So. Who does the poll, and how they word it, has an effect on the results.
February:

Quote

Following Powell's February 5 speech at the UN, most polls, like one conducted by CNN and NBC, showed increased support for the invasion...percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%...A Gallup poll showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11....Anti-war demonstrations took place in more than 500 US cities,

That was the State of the Union address with the bad information about Niger, right? I did some cherry-picking of the quotes, but not a whole lot. And it's what everyone does. Including our illustrious leaders.
March:

Quote

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration didn't not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%. [7]

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.

I still don't see overwhelming support for the war. I see people wanting to be part of the world. No cherry picking there. That's the whole section.
April:

Quote

A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War, despite finding no evidence of chemical or biological weapons.[citation needed]

A poll made by CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found.

Now this is a damn shame in my opinion. That's also the whole section. May isn't much different, and the next entry is August of 2004, when there is growing dissatisfaction.

I don't see overwhelming support for the war in its runup. I do remember a whole lot of people who were supporting the troops, which is right. But supporting the troops does not mean you support the war.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)