My theory on why 50% of Americans still insist Iraq had WMDs

That single lie holds up the entire house of cards.

Remember at the beginning when those of us who said Bush and his minions were lying about Iraq's nonexistent WMD programs were called conspiracy theorists and considered traitors for even suggesting such a thing?

If they ever let themselves stop believing this lie they know that they become the conspiracy theorists themselves.

Don

the fairytale that the USA is led by honorable men who only want to spread "democracy" around the world. You have to believe that those men would not attack and occupy countries to control the flow of oil and natural gas to make billions upon billions of dollars in profits.

the entire country go down in ruins than to admit that. Look at what happened to Germany and Japan, and you'll get some idea about how strong the desire to avoid loss of self-respect among true-believers is.

On the other hand, we the opposition, run the risk of a corresponding form of delusion -- being completely cynical about Gov't -- believing that nobody in office, the military, intelligence or law enforcement has any integrity, and that they're all willing accomplices in mass murder for profit. That simply isn't true, either.

When all is said and done, let us try to honor those on both sides who under extremely difficult conditions of group-think under this criminal regime did the right thing.

Oil & Gas: Hundreds of Billions
Military Contracting: Hundred+ Billion
Military Industrial Complex (Military Equipment/Ordinance): Tens(?)+ Billions

and while everybody at home is distracted...

Tax Cuts: Hundreds of Billions...

No doubt this has to be the biggest grab for wealth that has ever occured in the History of Mankind... and much of it was based on credit, the bill for which will be left in the hands of the "middle class" (and should, by all rights, effectively move the entire middle class much closser to the poverty line (and many will cross the line)). We'll be busy and helpless for generations paying this off, while the wealthy will be vastly more wealthy and continue both compose the majority of, and control, our government.

Welcome the Hidden (somewhat) Oppressive (totally) Pretend (completely) Democratic Republic (in appearance) of the United States.

They can't tell the difference between wish and thought.

As long as Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Coulter, Humphries, Savage, Gibson, Mancow, Beck and others are spewing their lies - the number of "believers" wont dip below 50%

I don't mean this in a snide way at all, but we need to be using the same Terms Of Reference (TOR) or any answer lacks objectivity and I would be wasting your time.

My suggestion is to adopt the following as the criteria:

1. "WMD" means nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. One intended to produce a casualty effect on more than one (person) target.

2. "Weapons" means plural, more than one.

3. The qualifier I suggest adding is that a WMD recovered still be potentially lethal in a nuclear, biological or chemical context. For example, a nuclear bomb with insufficiently enriched uranium could kill if dropped on your head from 20,000 feet. But the lack of fission and nuclear yield would make it a heavy bomb, not a nuclear warhead. So a nuclear WMD needs to produce fission or fusion. A chemical weapon (working with non-biological chemical processes) or a bio weapon (producing a biological toxin) needs to be capable of incapacitating or killing humans.

That sound OK?

I've got to run to the grocery, but if you agree with the TOR, I'll prepare a serious response as soon as I'm back - probably in about an hour.

Kind of goes for a whole fistfull of issues the RW pushes...

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Right wing radio is responsible for the other 25%

I am convinced that, if asked where their mistaken beliefs are grounded, hardly one in five of the 50% would cite as their source these quotations or even the much more pro-war pronouncements from the right-wing political class.

Most of this kind of talking-head discourse stays far below the political radar of the average Joe, UNLESS it's re-quoted on right-wing radio or TV.

It's the unrelenting conflation of Saddam with 9/11 & Osama/Al-Qaeda, blaring out of their car radios, airport TV screens & nightly Fox News that hold sway in their framing of reality. SG

in Feb. '03, before the invasion, 55% now want immediate withdrawal regardless of consequences (no "staying the course"), with about 70% disapproving of the war/occupation and wanting either immediate or phased withdrawal, and a whopping 84% oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war.

Opposition to the Iraq War has been steady and climbing the entire time, STARTING OUT with a majority opposed (56%).

So, what are we then to make of these two strange stats--that about 50% still believe Saddam had WMDs and also that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The only reasonable explanation is that, while some people still have these bits of disinformation in their heads, they DON'T agree with Bush's interpretation of them and they don't approve of his response to them. They don't think Saddam's WMDs required a war. Bush exaggerated the threat. It should have been handled by the UN, sanctions, etc. The same with Saddam-9/11. He may have had a part in it, but it was minor, and invading Iraq, and killing innocents and torturing people, and getting U.S. soldiers killed, was unnecessary.

Another interesting stat: 63% of Americans oppose torture "under any circumstances" (May '04). This, despite 24/7 fearmongering and propaganda ever since 9/11. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 63%!

And an interesting breakdown of the early majority opposition to the Iraq war (56%): about half of these totally opposed the invasion/war; the other half would only support it if it was a UN peacekeeping action (i.e., international consensus that the threat was serious).

What I see in this whole picture is that Americans don't trust Bush. They didn't trust him way back in Feb. '03. They trust him even less now. (84% opposed to any more Mideast adventures!). I also see Americans struggling nobly against disinformation, and trying to maintain their common sense, their sense of fairness and equity, and their sense of lawfulness, in the face of unrelenting propaganda.

All other polls--issue polls, approval polls, corporate or independent--show overwhelming disapproval of Bush and ALL OF HIS POLICES, foreign and domestic, stretching way back before the 2004 election. The ONLY exception is the 2004 election itself, in which the votes were tabulated by TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by two corporations with very close ties to the Bush junta (--a recent coup, 2002-2004, accomplished by the two biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney--now indicted or resigned in bribery scandals--with the so-called "Help American Vote Act," a nearly $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle for Bush bud's at Diebold and ES&S, by which SECRETLY PROGRAMMED voting machines and central tabulators were fast-tracked all over the country.)

If the mantra is:

"Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!"
"Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!"
"Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!""Bush lied on WMD!"


But it is then proven that Iraq Did have WMD, even if it's only 50 or so, then the ELECTION cry becomes:

"If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!" "If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!""If the Liberals lie about Bush and WMD, then they will lie about anything!"

And not much else is noticed.

That's why such criticisms need to be precisely accurate, not just what one side ot the other wants it to be.

My prediction: The 500+ chemical weapons are not being highlighted right now because Rove is waiting for a critical mass of democtaric candidates to commit themselves to that position. Then out come the best-ever-produced commercials featuring the recovered chem weapons along with compelling analysis of the number of Americans they could have wiped out in NYC, Chicago, Denver and LA should they have fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda, EIJ, Abu Sayef, Hizballa and myriad other terrorist orgs that hate the US.

Democrat claims that old mustard agent isn't so hazardous is smothered under reports of WWI munition that still are lethal and 30 second spots highlighting that "Democrats STILL don't get it".

Rove points out that Richard Clarke tried for many years during the Clinton Administration to mobilize efforts against Al Qaeda but got no support because, after all, Al Qaeda had killed only about 35 Americans. The election commercials change the war on terror focus from striking back at Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to preempting ANY terrorists who, if left unchecked will become the next Al Qaeda, killing Americans by the thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands.

And since the 500 or more chemical munitions have the starring role, people will SEE them lined up neatly in rows like the drugs & guns often displayed by the DEA, they hear the words "The Republicans took these away from Iraq - The Democrats say that was a mistake - they still don't get it and you can't trust them to lead and keep you safe."

Anybody predict Rove's commercials radically different?

I don't think the pentagon left that option available to Karl when they denied Santorum's claims. A counter by the dems featuring quotes of the pentagon's rebuttals would be too easy and effective.

21 June 2006, SUBJECT: Iraqi Chemical Munitions. It is addressed, not anybody in the Senate, but to the Chairman and full membership of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. <http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf>

The DNI action, which had been requested by the committee chairman, declassifies key points from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on recovered munitions.

NGIC is a major subordinate command of the Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). It functions as the Army's all-source intelligence center and exists concurrently within both the inteligence commuity and the Department of Defense. Because the action requested declassification of foreign intelligence, it was the DNI's perogative, not the USD(I).

If you have something from the Pentagon that contradicts the WMD claim, can you post a link to it? Because this is definitely not a document that rebuts the existence of Iraqi WMD. To the contrary, it serves as both DoD and Intelligence confirmation of that fact.

Quotes from the document:

"Purpose: This summary provides an unclassified overview of chemical munitions rcovered in Iraq since May 2004."

"Key Points:"

"--Since 2003 Coalation forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."

"--Despite many efforts to locat and destrol Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

"--Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use...by terrorists or insurgnt groups would have implications for Coalation Forces.... The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out."

"--The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projctiles."

"--The purity of the agent...depends on many factors.... While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."

"It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons."

Here's a second link, to a "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". You will probably recognize this well-known peace group by their "Doomsday Clock" showing a countdown to nuclear armegedden. (currently 7 minutes till midnight) The article was about WWI chemical munitions posing a threat to a Wash DC suburb in 2001. <http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so01tucker>

Virtually every account of Santorum's /announcement' included a statement attributed to "the Pentagon" saying, in effect, these were just old leftover shells.
The munitions you are referring to are also part of the Weapons Inspectors report which concluded there were no WMD in Iraq. They aren't going to be dwelling on the past.
No, the October surprise will much more likely be another "new reality" such as an attack by Israel on Iran.

Bush junta going to invade Russia, because they don't like the Bushites any more (won't back them on Iran), or France, or Egypt, or China, or Venezuela--or any of the 100+ governments in the world that despise the Bush junta and are opposing their schemes--because they have canisters of mustard gas in their basement?

I do like how you think, though. And we need to think along these sort of lines--that is, we need to think strategically. Torture and mass murder are a P.R. game to the Bushites. And the game is, not so much to fool people as to convince the majority--the people with common sense, who, though they may have succumbed to propaganda about WMDs, STILL OPPOSE WAR AS THE SOLUTION TO IT--that they are the MINORITY, and that most other Americans have NO common sense, and vote for unjust, illegal, unnecessary war, and massive theft of the federal treasury. The Bushites/Rove have to come up with post-(s)election "explanations" for how they "won." Hatred of gays, hatred of brown immigrants, mustard gas in Saddam's basement, whatever. And/or a big GOP Gotv effort--re-registering that fanatical 30% base time and again, I guess. (The Democrats blew the Bushites away in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40. None of the lapdogs asked, how could they have won, in that case? They all just went with Rove's impressionistic explanation--their "invisible GOTV campaign in the churches." No evidence of any significant success of that effort--none! How often can you increase your support by "getting out the vote" AGAIN, from the same fanatical base? The Dems, on the other hand--in addition to a dead heat in 2000--50/50 vote that Gore won by a hair--ADDED big majorities of the newly registered voters, of independents and of former Nader voters. So how did Kerry lose? Answer: "INVISIBLE" Gotv "in the churches.")

We are about to see UTTER BULLSHIT again--before the (s)election, as they plant their newsturds (gays, browns, mustard gas, terra) in the newstream for LATER USE, and after the (s)election, when the rottweilers of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies REPEAT all these turds, farts and spitballs of "news."

And here's what they're covering up:

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer," right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney in 2004"; and

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship; they are run by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich.

These are the people who "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy. And they are even more entrenched now.

Voting machines and central tabulators run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, all over the country. Fast-tracked between 2002-2004, via the Anthrax Congress and its biggest crooks, Tom Delay and Bob Ney (now indicted or resigned in bribery scandals), who engineered the "Help America Vote Act," a nearly $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle for Bush's buds at Diebold and ES&S.

The Democrats were collusive. Their MIND-BOGGLING SILENCE while Bushite corporations took over our election system has yet to be explained. The silence of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies is not at all a surprise. It's what we've come to expect of them. They even helped out Diebold and ES&S by twiddling their own exit polls to match the results of the trade secret formulae, on election night 2004. We might hear little tweeps about Diebold security holes and electronic voting machine breakdowns. But entirely NON-TRANSPARENT vote counting by Bushite corporations will get (is getting) a pass, as before.

The election reform movement is growing by leaps and bounds. But there is nothing on the horizon to stop Stolen Election III this fall. They might throw us some bones, if they're smart. But we won't and can't get accurate vote counts and a true reflection of the opinions of the American people in these (s)elections--and we most certainly will not achieve an anti-war, anti-Bush majority in Congress (too many collusive Democrats who are themselves now beholden to Diebold and ES&S, and not to us.)

What to do? Massive Absentee Ballot voting this fall. It's already gotten quite big (50% in Los Angeles). Boycott the machines! Bring this election theft industry to its knees and FORCE reform NOW. AB votes are not "safe" either--and won't give us accurate counts this fall--but a big citizen revolt against these machines COULD save the '08 primaries and general election.

As for Rove's newsturds: I'll tell you what I think the American people would love. A series of very short ads, featuring Howard Dean. No fuzzy-brain stuff. No P. R. stuff. Just an honest man, saying the following: "We are not going to run typical TV ads this year, for Democratic candidates, because we think this race for money to pay for the ads is corrupting American politics. We also think that our country's situation is too serious to condense into TV ads. So you aren't going to see very of these. Vote for __________, the Democratic candidate for Congress in the ____district."

Short and sweet. Plain, plain, plain.

Another ad I'd like to see. Same ambience. Howard speaks plainly: "The Democratic Party made a serious mistake in not warning you about the problems with electronic voting. We no longer trust these electronic voting systems, which are run by private corporations using trade secret code. We urge you to vote by Absentee Ballot, or other paper ballot option, wherever possible--and to help us closely monitor this year's election results. Vote for __________, the Democratic candidate for Congress in the ____district."

Just ignore Rove's bullcrap. I think American viewers and voters would be so relieved--both to hear plain talk, and to hear WHAT THE REASON IS for the Bush junta (non-transparent electronic voting)--and not to be plagued by bullcrap political campaign commercials this fall. You'd hear cries of joy all over the land! People would flock to the polls AGAIN to throw these bastards out.

As Adolf Hitler wrote in 1925:

"The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars"

which sums up the WMD lies quite nicely.

more prominent journalists, who had a lot of TV access, employed in service to our new Crown like Bob Novak as well as the singularly right wing radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh who did the same thing.

Issues were obscured by words strung together like 9-11, Osama, WMDs and Iraq. Over and over again paragraphs were spoken that strung those words together until they blended in the mind of the listeners into one issue.

Those of us who actually sit down and read news from print media weren't fooled so I guess 50% of those who believe don't read anything. Their news sources haven't changed their tactics nor corrected their "mistakes". Your theory of not wanted to believe they were complicit in conspiracy theories might be true for 25% of them but I don't think all of them if they bothered to try to find out the truth.