WMD allegations make a comeback

[edward]

According to my morning paper an Associated Press article written by Charles J Hanley indicates that 50 percent of the American people now believe that there are WMD in Iraq. This is up from 35 percent one year ago.

The free Republic and other rightwingers including talk radio are taking this to a totally bizarre extreme and apparently people are believing it.

Link from the Free? Republic with sub links.
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5300

The Iraq Survey Group totally debunked the WMD myth. What could be the psycololgy behind people believing or wanting to believe this tripe.

On July 21 (I can't find a link, but it is in Hanley's article) A Fox news segement reported. Are Saddam Hussein's WMD Now in Hezbolla's Hands? Fox had no evidence. This is truly Rovian.

I will try to find a link to Hanley's article. edit: here is one
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/07/half_of_us_still_believes_iraq_had_wmd/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

 

[pcorbett]

The Iraq Survey Group totally debunked the WMD myth.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is to say the Duelfer report detailed Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions regarding the declaration and destruction of proscribed weapons and materials.

What could be the psycololgy behind people believing or wanting to believe this tripe.

We ask the same question about the other side all the time.

 

[edward]

That's one way to look at it. Another way is to say the Duelfer report detailed Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions regarding the declaration and destruction of proscribed weapons and materials.



We ask the same question about the other side all the time.

Read the article by Hanley. You are debunked with facts. And no, don't give me any assignments or suggest that I am using the wrong definition of the word "facts" as you have done in another thread

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Personally, I couldn't care less what the results of ANY poll are. They are misleading and manufactured, why should I or anyone else care about what other people "think"? Talk about herd instinct.

 

[kyleb]

Herd instinct is exactly the problem being discussed here, whole herds of people being driven to irrational fears over nonexistent weapons.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Herd instinct is exactly the problem being discussed here, whole herds of people being driven to irrational fears over nonexistent weapons.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that weapons were found in Iraq, but this information was kept quiet for political reasons, I.E. the original sources of the weapons (or the materls and chemicals used in them) can be traced back to "ally" nations?

 

[edward]

Personally, I couldn't care less what the results of ANY poll are. They are misleading and manufactured, why should I or anyone else care about what other people "think"? Talk about herd instinct.

It was politically led herd instinct that got us into the quagmire in Iraq.
You don't really think that it was independent thinkers that got us there do you??

 

[kyleb]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that weapons were found in Iraq, but this information was kept quiet for political reasons, I.E. the original sources of the weapons (or the materls and chemicals used in them) can be traced back to "ally" nations?

There are herds pushing that impression on people, but not with any reasonable basis for the claim.

 

[edward]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that weapons were found in Iraq, but this information was kept quiet for political reasons, I.E. the original sources of the weapons (or the materls and chemicals used in them) can be traced back to "ally" nations?

My God you fell for the group think.

Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum

The idea that the information about the stray shells found was withheld because the United States, through the Department of Commerce, made it possible for Iraq to buy the chemicals is bunk.

All of the Iraq's chemical weapons were filled with chemicals with the purchase made possible by the USA. That was common knowledge a long time ago.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Whatever, I am not particurally interested in arguing the finer points of the Iraq war, my simple point is just that polls in their current form (ESPECIALLY when coming from the A.P.) are B.S. I'm sure there are Iraq war threads a mile long with many arguments laid out, I don't feel the need to re-invent the wheel in this respect, because in the end people need to make up their own mind, no one should do it for them... Unfortunately factual data is very lacking in this arena, and it is my suspicion that any real data that exists is either classified, or drowned out by raging opinion.

As for polling- my suspicion is that people's opinions are close to a standard distribution on any given sontroversial subject, and the "limits" of where the poll is taken dictate the results. Most of the time, a controversial issue such as this end up 50-50. Phrasing, available questions, and context have too large an effect on a poll's answers to make it even marginally effective.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

My God you fell for the group think.

Right back atcha Eddie :yuck:

 

[Rach3]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that weapons were found in Iraq, but this information was kept quiet for political reasons, I.E. the original sources of the weapons (or the materls and chemicals used in them) can be traced back to "ally" nations?

And what's your source for this speculative little tidbit?

 

[pcorbett]

Read the article by Hanley.

Here's an assignment for you. You read it and point out where I'm "debunked with facts." Then you can play with the goalposts and retreat to the presently safe claim that "there is no evidence of an active, viable Iraqi chemical or biological arsenal." Of course, that wasn't the question asked on the poll, now was it?

 

[pcorbett]

My God you fell for the group think.

I'm don't think "group think" means what you think it means.

All of the Iraq's chemical weapons were filled with chemicals with the purchase made possible by the USA. That was common knowledge a long time ago.

Um, where did you get that idea?

On the point about the ISG addressing the chemical munitions shells uncovered in Iraq.

Disposition of CW Munitions Post-1991

ISG expended considerable time and effort investigating longstanding Iraqi assertions about the fate of CW munitions known to have been in Baghdad’s possession during the Gulf war. We believe the vast majority of these munitions were destroyed, but questions remain concerning hundreds of CW munitions.

Since May 2004, ISG has recovered dozens of additional chemical munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets and a binary Sarin artillery projectile (see Figure 5). In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks, but we can neither determine if the munitions were declared to the UN or if, as required by the UN SCR 687, Iraq attempted to destroy them. (See Annex F.)

* The most significant recovered munitions was a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile which insurgents had attempted to use as an improvised explosive device.
* ISG has also recovered 155mm chemical rounds and 122mm artillery rockets which we judge came from abandoned Regime stocks.

The 1991 Decision To Destroy Undeclared Weapons

An IAEA inspection led by Dr. David Kay in late June 1991 triggered Iraq’s decision to unilaterally destroy the undeclared weapons that had been concealed from the UN, according to multiple senior Iraqi officials. Dr. Kay’s inspection team was blocked from sites in Abu Ghurayb and Fallujah. The Iraqis fired warning shots over the inspectors’ heads, but Dr. Kay and his group brought back video tapes and photos that indicated Iraq was hiding undeclared uranium enrichment equipment from the inspectors.

* Dr. Kay’s inspection and the international uproar surrounding it caused consternation and a measure of panic in the Regime’s leadership, particularly Husayn Kamil, and Saddam appointed a high-level committee headed by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz to deal with inspection matters, according to multiple sources.
* A senior Iraqi scientist who directed the destruction of chemical and biological munitions contends that the decision to destroy the hidden materials was made at the end of June 1991. David Kay’s inspection and the ensuing controversy prompted Iraqi concerns about renewed war with the United States, according to Dr. Mahmud Firaj Bilal. Amir Rashid contacted Dr. Bilal and ordered that all hidden chemical and biological munitions be destroyed within 48 hours. When Bilal responded that this was impossible, Rashid directed that Bilal use the resources of the Iraqi Air Force and the surface-to-surface missile force to accomplish the task. Dr. Bilal gathered his colleagues from Al Muthanna State Establishment, went to the locations of the stored munitions, and began the destruction.
* Iraq declared some of the unilateral destruction–missiles and chemical munitions–to UNSCOM in March 1992 but continued to conceal the destruction of the biological weapons program.

Iraq Unilateral Weapons Destruction in 1991 [1].

Iraq completed the destruction of its pre-1991 stockpile of CW by the end of 1991, with most items destroyed in July of that year. ISG judges that Iraq destroyed almost all prohibited weapons at that time.

* ISG has obtained no evidence that contradicts our assessment that the Iraqis destroyed most of their hidden stockpile, although we recovered a small number of pre-1991 chemical munitions in early to mid 2004.
* These remaining pre-1991 weapons either escaped destruction in 1991 or suffered only partial damage. More may be found in the months and years ahead.

So now we know three things
1. Iraq did not comply in substance (they retained hundreds of munitions) or in process (they did not declare tens of thousands of munitions) with the disarmament protocols specified in the pertinent Security Council resolutions.
2. ISG has no idea what happened to hundreds pre-1991 of CW munitions.
3. Over 500 CW munitions have been found since exploitation began.

Personally, I couldn't care less what the results of ANY poll are. They are misleading and manufactured, why should I or anyone else care about what other people "think"? Talk about herd instinct.

My guess is because what other people think affects policy insofar as those people elect the policymakers.

 

[edward]

All of the Iraq's chemical weapons were filled with chemicals with the purchase made possible by the USA. That was common knowledge a long time ago.

Um, where did you get that idea?

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/made-in-the-usa-part-iii-us-government-agency-listings/2892/

Not that you will read it.

So now we know three things
1. Iraq did not comply in substance (they retained hundreds of munitions) or in process (they did not declare tens of thousands of munitions) with the disarmament protocols specified in the pertinent Security Council resolutions.
2. ISG has no idea what happened to hundreds pre-1991 of CW munitions.
3. Over 500 CW munitions have been found since exploitation began.

Three moot points, the Pentagon has declared the pre 1991 weapons as unusable.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

And what's your source for this speculative little tidbit?

Well, more than anything I am referring to documents from Saddam's regime released by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office a short while ago, which detailed Iraq's connections with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their policies for hiding/disposing of components, chemicals, and documents in laboratories from U.N. inspections. I used to have a link to these documents, but it has since gone dead, perhaps someone else has one

As for the speculation about the origins of the weapons, it comes mainly from Rush Limbaugh (which I tend to agree with, although he himself said it was speculation when trying to decide why these documents had been classified for so long). One way or another, it seems strange to me that the military has been finding weapons in Iraq, yet these discoveries have been played down, even though they would be helpful to Bush's stance, and the military's on-going campaign in Iraq. it makes me wonder is all :uhh:

I'm just throwing ideas around, even if I do realize that many people on this board are visciously liberal.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Are Saddam Hussein's Now in Hezbolla's Hands?

On another note, it's obvious that Hezbolla is not using old Iraqi weaponry, they are being supplied by Syria and Iran.

 

[edward]

The shells have been found one or two at a time over the last three years. Rush is the epitome of group think.

 

[edward]

On another note, it's obvious that Hezbolla is not using old Iraqi weaponry, they are being supplied by Syria and Iran.

The Exact quote from the Fox news segement was

"ARE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH'S HANDS?" I cut and pasted the entire sentence, how did the term WMD come up missing??

Regardless, this is the type of outrageous National Enquirer mentality that uninformed people on the right are falling for.

 

[BobG]

I'm don't think "group think" means what you think it means.



Um, where did you get that idea?

On the point about the ISG addressing the chemical munitions shells uncovered in Iraq.



So now we know three things
1. Iraq did not comply in substance (they retained hundreds of munitions) or in process (they did not declare tens of thousands of munitions) with the disarmament protocols specified in the pertinent Security Council resolutions.
2. ISG has no idea what happened to hundreds pre-1991 of CW munitions.
3. Over 500 CW munitions have been found since exploitation began.

All true statements that miss the point completely. If the reason for the invasion was to punish Iraq for failing to comply, your statements would be relevant.

As it was, 99.7% of chemical weapons were destroyed in spite of a half-ass, rushed plan for destruction. The remaining weapons found were non-functional and dispersed haphazardly around the country. Even if the reason for invasion was non-compliance, such a punishment would be overkill for a 0.3% error rate.

The reason for the invasion was that Iraq's WMD were portrayed as an imminent threat, which they were not. The only one of your statements that relate to that is the first. If Iraq had been more open about destroying their weapons, there would have been no question about the threat.

With Hussein concealing his destruction activities, the US could rely on reports from UN inspectors (no evidence of WMD found, but unable to rule out existence) or CIA reports (yellowcake uranium, mobile chemical laboratories, centrifuge tubes, etc). Which wound up being more reliable?

 

[kyleb]

Well, more than anything I am referring to documents from Saddam's regime released by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office a short while ago, which detailed Iraq's connections with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their policies for hiding/disposing of components, chemicals, and documents in laboratories from U.N. inspections. I used to have a link to these documents, but it has since gone dead, perhaps someone else has one

As for the speculation about the origins of the weapons, it comes mainly from Rush Limbaugh (which I tend to agree with, although he himself said it was speculation when trying to decide why these documents had been classified for so long). One way or another, it seems strange to me that the military has been finding weapons in Iraq, yet these discoveries have been played down, even though they would be helpful to Bush's stance, and the military's on-going campaign in Iraq. it makes me wonder is all :uhh:

I'm just throwing ideas around, even if I do realize that many people on this board are visciously liberal.

Many of us here are not liberals, we just happen to know something that Rush isn't telling you; the only "WMDs" found in Iraq were decades old chemical shells were inherently lost in the shuffle ages ago an were never subject to any disarmament resolutions. Here is another person who is definitely not a liberal stating the truth about Iraq:

"It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." -Donald Rumsfeld

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It's my opinion that too many people in this country have become so entrenched in their fight against Bush that they refuse to accept any evidence that doesn't fit their agenda, and get caught up in anti-Bush "groupthink." There is way more "groupthink" thrown around by the main-stream media than by Rush Limbaugh.

Everyone has an agenda.

 

[kyleb]

Do you think Rumsfeld was taking an agenda against Bush when he made clear that there is no rational grounds to believe Iraq had WMDs?

 

[Manchot]

As for polling- my suspicion is that people's opinions are close to a standard distribution on any given sontroversial subject, and the "limits" of where the poll is taken dictate the results. Most of the time, a controversial issue such as this end up 50-50. Phrasing, available questions, and context have too large an effect on a poll's answers to make it even marginally effective.

But it's not a controversial subject! No one in a political position claims that Saddam had WMDs, because it would be a lie. People like Rush Limbaugh offer baseless speculation (i.e., completely without merit, and yet you agree with him), while people like Rick Santorum offer distractions to make people who don't pay close attention think that maybe Saddam was hiding these WMDs.

One way or another, it seems strange to me that the military has been finding weapons in Iraq, yet these discoveries have been played down, even though they would be helpful to Bush's stance, and the military's on-going campaign in Iraq. it makes me wonder is all

I think you've answered your own question. If the military found weapons which were actually important, Bush would be all over it. There's nothing strange going on: they haven't found anything important in the old weapons, so they aren't played up.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Many of us here are not liberals, we just happen to know something that Rush isn't telling you; the only "WMDs" found in Iraq were decades old chemical shells were inherently lost in the shuffle ages ago an were never subject to any disarmament resolutions. Here is another person who is definitely not a liberal stating the truth about Iraq:

"It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." -Donald Rumsfeld

I am aware that these weapons being found are old, left-overs of obvious pre-1991 chemical weapon programs.

I am also aware of Donald Rumsfeld's quote.

Still, Iraq isn't the problem now, it's Iran I have no idea what we're going to do with them, because U.N. resolutions are completely worthless without the intent of force backing it up (which apparently very few countries on our side have nowadays.)

 

[kyleb]

I found a video of http://mediamatters.org/items/200607220002; and again, the truth which much of our media conviently overlooks:

"It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." -Donald Rumsfeld

 

[edward]

I found a video of http://mediamatters.org/items/200607220002; and again, the truth which much of our media conviently overlooks:

"It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." -Donald Rumsfeld

Great find, thanks. It is pretty obvious that a lot of this rejuvenation of the old WMD theme has a lot to do with the upcoming elections. But my God how low can they go?

 

[russ_watters]

All true statements that miss the point completely.

That may be, but it explains why such polls as the one discussed in the OP are useless. As you say, the answer to the question 'Did Iraq have WMD when we invaded?' is a simple, factual yes, but the issue is far more complicated than that question is capable of handling.

 

[kyleb]

The answer is only a simple "yes" if your definition of "WMDs" by includes weapons which both sides were, not only well aware of, but also unconcerned with as those weapons were long lost and outdated shells that weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway.

 

[pcorbett]

Not that you will read it.

Of course I'd read it, if for no other reason than your source apparently can't spell Secretary George Shultz's last name correctly. Do you have anything other than hearsay to go on?

Three moot points, the Pentagon has declared the pre 1991 weapons as unusable.

When shifting the goalposts, it's recommended you don't follow up with a completely false claim. The agents had degraded to the point where they served no further battlefield use. The shells, on the other hand, had not. And the shells themseves are specifically proscribed.

 

[pcorbett]

Well, more than anything I am referring to documents from Saddam's regime released by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office a short while ago, which detailed Iraq's connections with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their policies for hiding/disposing of components, chemicals, and documents in laboratories from U.N. inspections. I used to have a link to these documents, but it has since gone dead, perhaps someone else has one

Here's your http://70.168.46.200/allFiles.aspx. Which document(s) are you referring to?

 

[pcorbett]

But it's not a controversial subject! No one in a political position claims that Saddam had WMDs, because it would be a lie.

How about Curt Weldon and Rick Santorum?

 

[pcorbett]

The answer is only a simple "yes" if your definition of "WMDs" by includes weapons which both sides were, not only well aware of, but also unconcerned with as those weapons were long lost and outdated shells that weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway.

In short, a definition adopted by an Administration in the lead up to war when Bush prominently cited the failure of Iraq to account for its pre-1991 arsenal in his 2003 State of the Union speech. Except the Administration (nor I) would accept your judgement that these "weapons...weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway" or that they were "lost."

 

[Manchot]

As you say, the answer to the question 'Did Iraq have WMD when we invaded?' is a simple, factual yes, but the issue is far more complicated than that question is capable of handling.

The answer is a simple, factual no. "WMD" means "Weapon of Mass Destruction." By definition, a WMD should be able to cause mass destruction. A weapon that is not functional cannot, by definition, be a WMD.

How about Curt Weldon and Rick Santorum?

As I already mentioned, they talk about the useless shells, which are not WMDs.

 

[pcorbett]

The answer is a simple, factual no. "WMD" means "Weapon of Mass Destruction." By definition, a WMD should be able to cause mass destruction. A weapon that is not functional cannot, by definition, be a WMD.

As I already mentioned, they talk about the useless shells, which are not WMDs.

This is sophistry. You might as well say a nuclear warhead with the initiator or fissile material removed or an unloaded firearm should be seen as useless and therefore not WMD.