- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Many American still hold misperceptions about Iraq war, poll finds
By Frank Davies
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON – A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave “substantial support” to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.
In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that “clear evidence” was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden’s network, and a majority believe that before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38 percent) or a major program for developing them (22 percent).
There’s no known evidence to date that these statements are true.
U.S. weapons inspector David Kay testified before Congress in January that no weapons were found and prewar intelligence on Iraq was “almost all wrong.” CIA Director George Tenet last month rejected assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq had cooperated with al-Qaida.
Despite that record, many Americans continue to believe that the threat from Iraqi weapons and its alleged links to terrorism justified the war. That conviction correlates closely with support for the war and President Bush, the poll released Thursday found.
For example, among those who say most experts agree that Iraq had banned weapons, 72 percent plan to vote for Bush.
The poll for the University of Maryland’s Program in International Policy Attitudes, conducted by Knowledge Networks from March 16 to 22, surveyed 1,311 adults and had a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.
Claims by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and links to terrorism helped shape public perceptions, said Steven Kull, the director of the program. No cause-and-effect relationship between the beliefs and support for the president could be proved, however.
In the poll, roughly 4 in 10 Americans perceived the administration as saying it had clear evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction just before the war.
The administration has backed off earlier claims that evidence of such weapons was found, but the president continues to say the weapons question is open. “We all thought he had weapons,” Bush said Wednesday.
“We’re so polarized right now that people are seeing what they want to see through a very partisan lens,” said Thomas Mann, a political analyst and Brookings Institution scholar.
The PIPA poll did have several warning signs for the administration, as respondents have become more pessimistic about the prospects for success in Iraq.
The number of those who believed the year-old war would result in greater peace and stability in the Middle East has dropped from 56 percent in a Gallup poll in May 2003 to 40 percent last month in the PIPA poll.
And for the first time, a majority of Americans – 51 percent – said they thought that a majority of Iraqis wanted U.S. forces to leave. The survey was completed before the worst violence of the occupation erupted in April.
—
Complete results can be found at the Web site of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, at http://www.pipa.org.
And more facts: A little movie. Enjoy.
Ducking responsibilityRuth Rosen
Thursday, April 22, 2004
FOR DECADES, conservative Republicans have hectored single mothers on welfare, sexually active teenagers and disadvantaged minorities to stop blaming others and to take responsibility for their own lives.
I agree that we should take responsibility for our actions. So how come top Bush officials have refused to take responsibility for what they have or have not done?
During her evasive testimony before the Sept. 11 commission, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice sounded like a stereotypical liberal as she repeatedly blamed “structural” problems (rather than actual people) for intelligence failures. She also described the Aug. 6, 2001, “Presidential Daily Briefing,” or PDB, as “historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information.”
Excuse me, but the title alone — “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U. S.” — should have sent shock waves through her office. The intelligence community does not give morning “history backgrounders” to the president. This particular memo, in fact, contained specific information about active threats. Yet, according to Rice, there was nothing more she could have done to prevent the terrorist attacks.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, another member of this responsibility- phobic administration, said that no one could have predicted that the war in Iraq would turn into such a dangerous occupation. Oh, really? Former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki told Rumsfeld that he needed several hundreds of thousands more troops. He was then sent into retirement.
Now, Rumsfeld says he is surprised about “the way it happens to be today. ” To which Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, responds, “Anyone could know the problem they were going to see. How could they not?”
Rice and Rumsfeld are guilty of gross incompetence and should resign.
Then there is President Bush, whose recent press conference demonstrated his tortured relationship with reality. “The PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat,” he said.
Just what doesn’t he understand about, “determined to strike”? That memo should have sent the president flying back to the capital to put the nation on a “war footing.” But this is a president who is so detached from the job that he has spent 40 percent of his time in office either at Camp David, Md., at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, or the Bush family retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine.
Bush didn’t need to apologize to the nation, but he should have been willing to admit that everyone, including the president, can always do more, even if we eventually fail.
Asked if he had made any recent mistakes, the president couldn’t even summon up one of his most serious blunders:
— His determination to wage war in Iraq has left Afghanistan a failed nation, propped up by the sale of opium poppies and ruled by rival warlords.
— His rush to end the U.N. weapons inspections, coupled with his “conviction” that Iraq had WMDs, resulted in few plans for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
— His unilateralism and policy of pre-emptive war have alienated our traditional allies and inflamed much of the Islamic world.
No one can truly know if the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks could have been prevented. Even the most attentive administration, less fixated on tax cuts, missile defense and Iraq, could have failed to connect all the dots.
It’s what happened after Sept. 11 that demonstrates this administration’s incompetence.
As former Treasury Secretary Paul O’ Neill, former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke and now Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, in his new book, “Plan of Attack,” have all confirmed, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had their eyes on Iraq since they took office in 2001.
Instead of working with the international community to eliminate the al Qaeda threat, and reconstruct Afghanistan, Bush hijacked a national tragedy so that he could topple Hussein and install a government that would assure the United States of a Mideast base and access to Iraq’s oil.
Whether or not you support the president or the war, it is hard to argue that Bush has demonstrated competence as a chief executive in pursuing these goals.
Bush is also guilty of breathtaking arrogance. Here is a man who shirked his own military responsibility, swaggered as he played a hero in a flight suit and then told the enemy, with adolescent bravado, to “bring it on.” Yet this is a man who is too insecure to admit he could have done more and too timid to face the Sept. 11 commission without Cheney at his side.
Bush’s deceptions and betrayal of the public trust after Sept. 11 may or may not constitute impeachable crimes. But he has certainly forfeited the right to govern our nation.
November can’t come soon enough.
Sacked for photo Americans weren’t meant to see
By Caroline Overington, Herald Correspondent in New York
April 23, 2004Offending image . . . Tami Silicio’s photograph of the coffins of American soldiers being secured inside a cargo plane at Kuwait airport for the trip home on the front page of The Seattle Times. Photo: The Seattle Times/AFP
Last Sunday a newspaper in Seattle, Washington, published a rare photograph of soldiers’ coffins, each of them containing the body of an American who had died in Iraq.
The coffins, each draped with the Stars and Stripes, had been loaded into the back of a cargo aircraft for a final journey to the US, where they would be buried. There were at least 18 of them in the picture, which was taken by a 50-year-old civilian contractor, Tami Silicio.
On Wednesday Ms Silicio was sacked from her job, for taking the photograph and sharing it with news organisations.
Ms Silicio worked for Maytag Aircraft Corporation, which has a $US18 million ($25 million) contract to handle cargo for the US Government at Kuwait airport.
As part of that job she would often see soldiers’ coffins in the back of aircraft, on their way from Iraq to burial in the US.
Earlier this month – which has been one of the deadliest for coalition soldiers – Ms Silicio decided to photograph the coffins. She asked a friend, Amy Katz, to forward the image to her local newspaper, The Seattle Times.
Ms Katz said she was “amazed” when she saw the photo. “I immediately picked up the telephone and because [Ms Silicio] is from Washington state, I called The Seattle Times,” she said. “Tami wanted to share the image with the American people.”
The US military generally bans photographs of soldiers’ coffins, and few have been published in US newspapers during the war in Iraq. On Wednesday Ms Silicio engaged an agent, who offered her photograph to newspaper outlets for $1400 for one-time, non-exclusive use.
The editor of the Times, Mike Fancher, said in a column this week that he decided to publish the photograph on the front page because it was “undeniably newsworthy”. Readers would have “differing reactions to the photo, depending on their views of the war”, he said.
The managing editor of The Seattle Times, David Boardman, told the magazine Editor & Publisher this week that “we weren’t attempting to convey any sort of political message”.
He disagreed with the military ban on photographs of coffins, saying: “The Administration cannot tell us what we can and cannot publish.”
Ms Katz said that after the picture was published Ms Silicio was “called into her supervisor’s office and severely reprimanded. She explained why she did it, but they sacked her and her husband [David Landry] too”. She said Ms Silicio “really wanted mothers of the soldiers to know how the coffins were handled”.
In an interview with The Seattle Times, Ms Silicio said the coffins were prayed over and saluted before being shipped.
“Everyone salutes with such emotion and respect,” she said. “The families would be proud to see their sons and daughters saluted like that.”
She said she had seen a coffin accompanied by the wife and, in another case, by the father of the fallen soldier.
William Silva, the president of Maytag Aircraft, was quoted by The Seattle Times as saying the sackings had been for violating US government and company regulations.
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/index.htm
Just felt it might be good for some people to read some facts.
Nowhere does it say anything about online gambling or conspiracies.
These sources are but thousands of sources – include well-known and respected sources, such as the New York Times.
How big of a 2X4 do we need?
They won’t read it. If they listened to or read anything except Fox News, they would already know this stuff.
It is obvious I am outnumbered by the democrats in this forum. I do not want a political debate. I am just speaking my opinion, that is all that matters, Hope you all will put up with Bush because he is going to win! :3eyes:
Oh am sorry I forgot the democrats were the honest party and only do great things for us. Man I guess I’ve been watching too much Fox news again. It’s always great to see affiliate managers talking shit on forums, it warms the hart. Anyway I think I will leave this conversation now as Fergie pointed out ignorance is bliss, and by reading quite a few posts lately I guess she’s right.
By labeling us as democrats, you both have put the whole issue into a tidy little box that keeps you in your comfort zone, and justifies ignoring the facts that are plain as the noses on your faces.
I’m not a democrat. That’s an american label. I’m Canadian. Look around – a few of the posters here aren’t even in the U.S., American or not.
We’ve even cut down Kerry and the democrats.
By labeling us as democrats, you’ve proven that neither of you understand or want to understand anything that’s been said.
Quote
Hope you all will put up with Bush because he is going to win!
Actually, Skull and Bones will win no matter who you choose… your free choice is any illusion.
:rolleyes:
Hey Everyone,
It is very clear we do not have a good choice of people running here for President. I don’t like John Kerry or Bush. Still, I will support Kerry and vote for him. What we need is another party geared for the people instead of themselfs. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Bottomline is that Bush has lied to the American people and is out for only himself. Bush did not even win the election. Al Gore did. I sure do wonder how things might have been if! Still, we clearly do not have a good choice. There is just to much lying by both parties and hidden agendas. We need people who care. There is just to many fruitcakes in this world.I’m with the Captain.
Lousy choices.
I am a republican of long standing – no more!
A botched election, a botched war and a country run by bigots.
I am cured.
It’s pretty darn hard in any country to be an idealist in politics. There’s corruption to some extent in every government.
Choosing who to vote for is an exercise in choosing who is the less corrupt!
In Canada, we don’t have much to choose from anymore, either. Everyone has friends and donators who get favours, and all that rot.
Our premier in British Columbia (akin to a governor in U.S.) has pissed off every voter in B.C. by now, and embarassed us horribly by picking up a drunk driving charge in Hawaii!
Can’t wait for the next provincial election here.
:p
Like predicted, it’s Bonus Time for The Bush Family and
the Bin Laden family: top shareholders in the Caryle Group
the prolongation of the ” war ” means HUNDREDS of MILLIONS
more for them thanks to the U.S. Government contracts
… Congratulations to both families !
:rolleyes:
Pentagon abandons timetable on reducing Iraq force
By James Harding in Washington
Published: May 5 2004 0:37 | Last Updated: May 5 2004 0:37The Pentagon announced on Tuesday that it intends to keep about 138,000 troops in Iraq until the end of 2005, abandoning plans to reduce the number of forces over the coming months.
In an admission of the deepening and protracted security problems facing the US in Iraq, military commanders extended their commitment of elevated troop levels for a further year and a half.
Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said the US faces an upsurge of violence in the run-up to the planned June 30 transfer of sovereignty. “This is a difficult period, but our folks are there and are going to stay there,” he said in a briefing.
The Pentagon said 10,000 active-duty army and Marine troops and 37,000 reserve and national guard troops were being told they would go to Iraq this year.
US military command had already delayed by three months its plan to reduce troop levels to 115,000 in May. Mr Rumsfeld said Gen John Abizaid, head of US central command responsible for operations in the Gulf, had since decided to maintain the troop level at 135,000 to 138,000 well beyond those 90 days.
The long-term commitment of elevated troop levels means that the US military, which started despatching soldiers in late 2002, is committing itself to a large deployment in the Gulf for at least three years, probably longer.
Last month the Pentagon said about 20,000 troops who had already served a year and were due to return home would be required to serve an extra 90 days. Mr Rumsfeld made clear on Tuesday that none of those servicemen and women would face a further extension of their tour of duty.
But the decision to maintain higher numbers suggests US military leaders in Baghdad do not expect a near-term improvement in security. The announcement of troop levels also comes before a new Iraqi governing authority has been established. Amid concern that the future Iraqi government will be at the mercy of US money and military power, one of the tests of its authority is seen as the terms of its relationship with US armed forces.
The Bush administration has always denied any connection between policy-making in Iraq and the domestic political calendar. But when the timetable for the handover of Iraqi sovereignty was initially set out, it promised to coincide with the re-election schedule of President George W. Bush: the June 30 handover comes just a couple of months before the Republican national convention and was expected to involve an agreement on troop levels, which would set out the terms for the gradual reduction of forces in Iraq in the run-up to the election, coalition officials privately acknowledged.
The bloody insurgency, however, has banished the hope of bringing large numbers of US soldiers home before November. Instead, Gen Norton Schwartz, director for operations on the military’s joint staff, said on Tuesday the plan was to keep the higher level of forces at least until the end of 2005.
