Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

51% STILL BELIEVE SADDAM HAD WMD - HARRIS POLL
New York Post ^ | 4/22/04 | ALY SUJO

Posted on 04/22/2004 1:31:44 AM PDT by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:21:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

April 22, 2004 -- Most Americans continue to believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when the war began, a new poll yesterday showed. The Harris Poll found that 51 percent believe Iraq had WMD, compared with 38 who don't believe the White House claim, a leading rationale for the U.S. invasion. The numbers have barely changed since February, when the last poll was conducted, despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction have yet to be uncovered.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: dupes; poll; pollsoniraq; saddam; treason; wmd

1 posted on 04/22/2004 1:31:45 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
People trust Bush, Powell, Condi and Rummy.
2 posted on 04/22/2004 1:32:48 AM PDT by GeronL (Who stole the fire truck in Poynor TX?? They need it back, please.... thanks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Anybody else here want to eliminate the word quagmire from the English language altogether? Just curious.
3 posted on 04/22/2004 1:40:09 AM PDT by Bronzewound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Well, they're right. He did have them. Maybe not recently, but he did have them.

And you can bet your a** he'd keep trying to get more if had been left in power.

4 posted on 04/22/2004 2:02:20 AM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronzewound
He used them against Iran. He used them against his own citizens(the Kurds). He used illegal weapons(as per the Gulf war treaty) on Kuwait and our forces. He fired continually on coalition aircraft. He bragged about having WMD and would use them. He attacked Iran, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Bahrain, Kuwait, his own citizens, U.S Forces and coalition forces during the last twelve years. Another Hitler wannabe stopped.
5 posted on 04/22/2004 2:04:52 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; XHogPilot; SandRat; Cindy; Smartass; RaceBannon
Well, they have to look for WMDs more but I am sure they are hidden somewhere under the sands. Well, jets are not WMD but it proves that we have to look as more as possible :

A U.S. military search team discovers a Cold War-era MiG-25R Foxbat B, the fastest combat aircraft today, buried beneath the sands in Iraq. Several MiG-25s and Su-25 ground attack jets have been found buried at al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad. (all photographs: USAF)

A U.S. military search team examines a Cold War-era MiG-25R Foxbat B, the fastest combat aircraft today, that lay buried beneath the sands in Iraq. Several MiG-25s and Su-25 ground attack jets have been found buried at al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad.

6 posted on 04/22/2004 2:08:28 AM PDT by F14 Pilot (John ''Fedayeen" Kerry - the Mullahs' regime candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronzewound
Anybody else here want to eliminate the word quagmire from the English language altogether?

I do. I am sick and tired of hearing it fifteen times a day and it's just not one.
7 posted on 04/22/2004 2:18:35 AM PDT by texasflower (in the event of the rapture.......the Bush White House will be unmanned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Reasonable people trust Bush, Powell, Condi and Rummy. You'd be utterly amazed at the number of people I've heard say that Bush and the rest are all liars, and now they've been caught.(all arguments lead to WMD) They characterize the entire administration as stupid, including Condi. They get their info from the nightly news, of course.

These are the same folks that are spouting that Iraq was a mistake, and we should bring everyone home now. I'm discouraged to find these wrong-headed Americans,(mostly older people) and I seem to find them every day. I don't understand how anyone could miss what is at stake with this war. Whether they choose to believe it or not, September 11th changed everything.

It's frightening to think about what would have happened if these same people were in charge at the time of Hitler's 'World Tour.'

Pray for this upcoming election.

8 posted on 04/22/2004 2:26:45 AM PDT by pubmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pubmom
It's frightening to think about what would have happened if these same people were in charge at the time of Hitler's 'World Tour.'

Actually they were, or at least their ilk were. That's why Hitler was able to do as much damage as he did.

9 posted on 04/22/2004 2:49:25 AM PDT by thedugal (I is a genious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
"Well, they're right. He did have them. Maybe not recently, but he did have them.

And you can bet your a** he'd keep trying to get more if had been left in power."

YEAH, and u can bet ur a** he had em when he was allied with american before kuwait, and you can bet ur a** his worst atrocities were committed when he was an ally with america, and YOU CAN BET UR A** he was a waste of time i mean he did deserve to die but there are other REAL terrorists that we couldve been hunting down

I still have to say thanks to all the military servicemen who are serving right now in Iraq
10 posted on 04/22/2004 4:01:05 AM PDT by Bonesaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I, not only believe Saddam had WMD but also believe they are still in Iraq. Probably in some sand dune 50-100 feet under ground.
11 posted on 04/22/2004 4:05:13 AM PDT by chainsaw (http://www.hanoijohnkerry.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
OH and to the guy who says there was some point to this war, THERE ISNT, i mean u think im wrong headed? Sept 11 had nothing to do with Iraq its kinda of a dissrespect to say that Sept 11 had, im some way justified a war in Iraq, why? tell me exactly how the security scare that was caused by Sept 11 justifies a war in Iraq which is KILLING WAY MORE PEOPLE that Saddam ever did, which, by the way the worst atrocities were committed during the time when he was allied with US... tell me now... which wouldve been better, an army in Afghanistan and the areas around it hunting down Osama and the rest of them or wasting billions of dollars causing a 500 billion dollar deficit costing 23 million jobs on a war in Iraq?
12 posted on 04/22/2004 4:06:54 AM PDT by Bonesaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pubmom
They get their info from the nightly news, of course.

My otherwise intelligent neighbor mentioned that he watches Kutie Katie because he thinks she's "cute".....I asked him if he thought she also had a brain!!!!

13 posted on 04/22/2004 4:09:32 AM PDT by Elkiejg (Clintons and Democrats have ruined America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I believe Iraq had WMD.

I do not believe that the White House used the actual possession of WMD as a major rationale for the war.

I believe evidence of WMD has been uncovered.

I believe I have seen this evidence on the front page of the New York Times.

I believe the government tried to be accurate about WMD.

I believe the government was accurate about WMD.

I believe that evidence showing Iraq's support for al Qaeda has been found.

I believe I have seen this evidence on the front page of the New York Times.

I am not concerned about Iraq becoming another "Vietnam".

Vietnam was not a "Vietnam". We did that to ourselves.

I believe the US is very likely to be in Iraq for a long time, but I have no problem with this.

I believe that if we pulled most of our troops out within a year we would invite another bloodbath like Cambodia, only with nukes this time.
14 posted on 04/22/2004 4:18:06 AM PDT by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
YEAH, and u can bet ur a** he had em when he was allied with american before kuwait, and you can bet ur a** his worst atrocities were committed when he was an ally with america, and YOU CAN BET UR A** he was a waste of time i mean he did deserve to die but there are other REAL terrorists that we couldve been hunting down...

If Saddam was such a good buddy of the US before Kuwait, why did he invade Kuwait with all of those Soviet tanks, trucks, and guns?

Our guys were facing AK's in Desert Storm, not M-16's.

For the last thirty years, almost all of Saddams weapons have been supplied by the Soviets/Russians or the (ahem) French.

Usually when we have an ally, we sell them weapons. The Soviets were not in the business of selling weapons to our allies.

15 posted on 04/22/2004 4:25:03 AM PDT by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
YEAH, and u can bet ur a** he had em when he was allied with american before kuwait, and you can bet ur a** his worst atrocities were committed when he was an ally with america, and YOU CAN BET UR A** he was a waste of time i mean he did deserve to die but there are other REAL terrorists that we couldve been hunting down

Have you always been stupid or did you have to take lessons?

Ronald Reagan noted that we had two major enemies in the middle east. They were Iran and Iraq. Iran had taken our hostages and was home to lots of militant muslims. So was Iraq under Saddam.

Then guess what.. Saddam decided to atttack Iran. Reagan saw that as a great opportunity. If IRan and Iraq were at war, they would not have time to attack us.. So Reagan conceived the brilliant Idea of helping which ever of our two enemies was loosing at the moment.

His idea was if Saddam was getting his butt kicked by Iran we would help Saddam and If Saddam was really kicking Iranian butt we would help the Iranians.

When the Democrats caught on to what Reagan was doing they used their control of congress and the Iran Contra thing to bring that policy to a complete halt.

Had we continued Reagans policy both Iran and Iraq would have been so beat up that neither the religious zealots in Iran or Saddam would have survived. It would not have cost a tenth of 87 billion dollars to be rid of both regimes.

Reagan saw it comming nearly 20 years before it happened. Had not the media and the Democats stopped him, todays problems would not exist.


16 posted on 04/22/2004 4:27:30 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
...a war in Iraq which is KILLING WAY MORE PEOPLE that Saddam ever did, which, by the way the worst atrocities were committed during the time when he was allied with US.

Aside from the grainy photograph of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, what evidence do you have that we were ever allies with Saddam?

I could show you a picture of Madeliene Albright doing the Macarena with Kim Jong Il, but that does not mean we were allies with North Korea in the 90's.

Look at the evidence for yourself. Google up "Highway of Death" (one of my favorite searches). Look at all that Soviet hardware, blasted to smithereens. Not an American made tank or truck or bus to be seen. Look at the force dispositions before Desert Storm. All Soviet equipment, with some French high-tech stuff thrown in.

I think we sold them two civilian variant helicopters in ten years. That does not make them our ally.

17 posted on 04/22/2004 4:32:06 AM PDT by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
Oh, and it was Iran/Contra, not Iraq/Contra. We were actively supplying Iraq's mortal enemy. Not something you do to your ally.
18 posted on 04/22/2004 4:33:44 AM PDT by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bondjamesbond
I do not believe that the White House used the actual possession of WMD as a major rationale for the war.

I believe that you discredit yourself COMPLETELY by stating this.

Also, John Negroponte called....he still says there were no death squads in Honduras.
19 posted on 04/22/2004 4:34:12 AM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
tell me exactly how the security scare that was caused by Sept 11 justifies a war in Iraq which is KILLING WAY MORE PEOPLE that Saddam ever did,

Your facts are simply wrong...

20 posted on 04/22/2004 4:38:52 AM PDT by ez (...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
Welcome to FR. We know he had 'em. He couldn't account for them. We still have to account for them. Nothing has really changed since before the war. Personally I believe that the opposition from the French and Russians allowed him time to get rid of the evidence and they are scattered far and wide by now.
21 posted on 04/22/2004 4:53:20 AM PDT by johnb838 ("I really don't care; they're all gonna die," US Marine in Fallujah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bondjamesbond
Oh, and it was Iran/Contra, not Iraq/Contra. We were actively supplying Iraq's mortal enemy. Not something you do to your ally.

Oh, and WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? We were ACTIVELY supplying Iraq. We were COVERTLY (and illegally) supplying Iran. But thanks anyway.

Maybe you need a refresher course:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

"It's all ball bearings these days."
22 posted on 04/22/2004 4:58:26 AM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
His (Reagan's) idea was if Saddam was getting his butt kicked by Iran we would help Saddam and If Saddam was really kicking Iranian butt we would help the Iranians

There's this great thing called the Constitution. Read it. Congress forbade the arming of Iran at the time. Remember?
23 posted on 04/22/2004 5:09:32 AM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Reagan saw it comming nearly 20 years before it happened. Had not the media and the Democats stopped him, todays problems would not exist.

Bump
24 posted on 04/22/2004 5:15:47 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (We'll be home before peace breaks out in France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bondjamesbond
And don't get me wrong....Bonesaw is an idiot.
25 posted on 04/22/2004 5:17:42 AM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bondjamesbond
Quite so. The American weapons (assault rifles, portable missiles, etc) ended up in the hands of the Islamic Iranian Republic's army, not in Iraq.
26 posted on 04/22/2004 5:57:39 AM PDT by Atlantic Friend (Cursum Perficio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
"war in Iraq which is KILLING WAY MORE PEOPLE that Saddam ever did"

300,000 bodies found SO FAR in mass graves in Iraq. don't know how many he killed in kuwait, iran, etc. no way have we killed more than saddam.

you're an idiot.
27 posted on 04/22/2004 6:55:08 AM PDT by SendShaqtoIraq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive
I said: I do not believe that the White House used the actual possession of WMD as a major rationale for the war.

You say: I believe that you discredit yourself COMPLETELY by stating this.

OK, show me where. Show me where the Bush White House, in a major policy address, said we had to invade Iraq because they had actual, usable WMD.

Oh, sure, they said Iraq had an active WMD program. True, BTW.

They said Iraq violated the Desert Storm Cease Fire. Also true, BTW.

They said Iraq was in violation of multitudinous UN Security Council Resolutions, which specifically authorized the use of force. Again, true.

They said Iraq had non-compliant long range missiles (true), experimental facilities (true) and never documented destruction of known stock-piles (true).

But show me where the White House said as a major justification for the War that Saddam was sitting there with a usable WMD bomb, nuclear, chemical, biological or otherwise. And don't give me some Undersecretary for Planning speaking to some Bozo on background.

We had all the reasons we needed without deployable WMD.

28 posted on 04/22/2004 7:05:04 AM PDT by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive
Maybe you need a refresher course: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

OK, I'm back, all refreshed...

I see two civilian helicopters sold after Iraq started using WMD in the Iran/Iraq war.

I see that the US wanted closer ties with Iraq, but was unable to make that happen because Iraq kept on using Chemical Weapons.

I see that the US recognized that it had common interests with Iraq, but that Iraq was impossible to work with because they were an outlaw regime.

There is nothing in that briefing document you pointed me to where we actively supported Iraq with military hardware. The only thing we did to support them was not condemn them as strongly as we might have for their use of CW. We actually stopped shipment of dual-use precursor chemicals to Iraq.

Look at the facts. In Desert Storm, we were up against massive amounts of Soviet supplied hardware. Back in the bi-polar 80's, Iraq were a Soviet client, not an American one. Of course we were always interested in peeling Soviet client states away from Moscow's orbit, but Iraq proved itself to be an outlaw regime, so nothing came of it.

So we are back to hanging geopolitical fantasies on that one grainy photo of Rumsfeld and Hussein from 1984. Well, how about this:

or this:

Just because she's doing "I'm a Little Teapot" in Pyongyang does not mean we were "allies" of North Korea.

29 posted on 04/22/2004 7:28:03 AM PDT by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bonesaw
there are other REAL terrorists that we couldve been hunting down

Give me names and locations.

For example you can't just say "Osama" without telling me WHERE HE IS. We can't send the military someplace to catch "Osama" without knowing WHERE HE IS.

Sept 11 had nothing to do with Iraq its kinda of a dissrespect to say that Sept 11 had, im some way justified a war in Iraq, why?

Who exactly is saying that Sept 11 justified the war in Iraq? Personally I believe that invading Iraq would have been perfectly justified even if 9/11 had never happened. Ok?

which wouldve been better, an army in Afghanistan and the areas around it hunting down Osama and the rest of them

Putting "an army" in Afghanistan would be rather senseless. To fly "an army" into Afghanistan and have them SIT THERE in military bases/camps like SITTING DUCKS would, in fact, be the height of idiocy.

You say they would be "hunting down Osama". HOW EXACTLY? Without knowing WHERE HE IS, are you saying that they'd march around in circles or figure-8s on a fricking WILD GOOSE CHASE "looking for him"? In the desert plains and mountain rocks of Afghanistan?

So that the locals could take potshots at them? What the heck are you thinking?

As for "the around around it", I guess you mean Pakistan. That is: NUCLEAR ARMED Pakistan. In other words you are saying we should launch a ground invasion of NUCLEAR ARMED Pakistan.

Suppose Pakistan doesn't approve? Then what?

Seriously, your ideas here are messed up. The fact is we HAVE military in Afghanistan and we have about as big a footprint as would be useful. Multiplying the number of troops in Afghanistan by 10 would not accomplish all that much except to make them sitting ducks. Know why? Because we don't know WHERE OSAMA IS that's why. If we DID get reliable (RELIABLE) intelligence of where he is, we could easily go take him with special ops force or just a bomb.

So having "an army" SITTING THERE in Afghanistan is USELESS.

wasting billions of dollars causing a 500 billion dollar deficit costing 23 million jobs on a war in Iraq?

Are you just making numbers up? How is the deficit "costing" 23 million jobs exactly? Show us your math.

Anyway, your idea (to send large numbers of infantry to Afghanistan to SIT THERE and/or march in circles aimlessly Looking For Osama) seems pretty wasteful to me given that it accomplishes NOTHING.

30 posted on 04/22/2004 7:53:37 AM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; All
"38% don't believe"

This figure is interesting because it is the average number of the hate-Bush crowd. I have noticed this number hovering between 35-39%.

Also .. several polls say that Kerry has hit the 40% mark on some polls - which tells me his popularity resides only with the hate-Bush crowd.
31 posted on 04/22/2004 9:23:36 AM PDT by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
100% of these people know for a fact that Saddam had and used weapons of mass destruction.

Graphic Photo

32 posted on 04/22/2004 9:40:11 AM PDT by Delta 21 (Have you read your Bible today ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive
There's this great thing called the Constitution. Read it. Congress forbade the arming of Iran at the time. Remember

Congress did not forbid arming Iran. It forbid the funding of the anti Communist Contras in South America with the Boland amendment. Boland kept attaching his amendent to help the Castro Allied Communists in South America. It is typical of Democrats to support tyrany. That is why they like Iran, Saddams Iraq, Castro's Cuba and the Sandanistas. The Democrats and especally Boland did not want tyranical states overthrown. Better lots of Americans die than evil be overthrown.

People like you either don't know the truth or enjoy lying. Perhaps you try to do both as often as possible.

There was nothing at all illegal in Reagan selling munitions to Iran. What was illegal was sending the money from the sales to the Contras.

But even that was debatable. The Boland amendment said funds appropriated by congress could not be used to help the Contras. The mone gained from selling weapons to Iran was not money appropriated by congress.

You wil notice tha Poindexter and North are not felons. They were not found guilty of any crime. You will note a convintion overturned is not a conviction anymore.

33 posted on 04/22/2004 7:08:19 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson