Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

Declaring “Independence from Reality”

CleanPrintBtn gray smallPdfBtn gray smallEmailBtn gray small

50% Still Think Saddam had WMD

By Charles J. Hanley, AP
Chicago Sun Times

August 7, 2006

Do you believe in Iraqi “WMD”?

Did Saddam Hussein’s government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag.

People tend to become “independent of reality” in these circumstances, said opinion analyst Steven Kull.

‘I’m flabbergasted’

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack that aimed to eliminate supposed WMD.

“I’m flabbergasted,” said Michael Massing, a media critic. “This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence.”

Timing may explain some of the poll result. Two weeks before the survey, two Republican lawmakers, Pennsylvania’s Sen. Rick Santorum and Michigan’s Rep. Peter Hoekstra, released an intelligence report saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

Latest ‘factoid’ a factor?

“I think the Harris Poll was measuring people’s surprise at hearing this after being told for so long there were no WMD in the country,” said Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware. But the Pentagon and outside experts emphasized that these abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more, their chemical contents were degraded, and they were unusable as artillery ordnance.

Conservative commentator Deroy Murdock, who trumpeted Hoekstra’s announcement in his syndicated column, complained that the press “didn’t give the story the play it deserved.” But in some cases it was highlighted. “Our top story tonight, the nation abuzz today . . .” was how Fox News led its report on the old, stray shells. Feedback to blogs grew intense. “Americans are waking up from a distorted reality,” read one posting.

Kull, Massing and others see an influence on opinion that’s more sustained than the odd headline.

“I think the Santorum-Hoekstra thing is the latest ‘factoid,’ but the basic dynamic is the insistent repetition by the Bush administration of the original argument,” said John Prados, author of the book Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War.

Administration statements still describe Saddam’s Iraq as a threat. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has allowed only that “perhaps” WMD weren’t in Iraq.

AP

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company

End

Source article here.


Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.