Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Non-News from the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee
An Oct 27th memo links the two terror organiztions.
An Oct 27th memo links the two terror organiztions.
Al Qaeda - Iraqi link?
- Thread starter Penn
- Start date
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Re: Re: Al Qaeda - Iraqi link?
Hah! You gotta point there.
Question: How come we have not heard about this on the local non-biased news channels?
Perhaps because it's not so good news for the democraps?
I caught a bit of this on the Fox News channel in between watching the LSU - Alabama football game. Only caught John Kasich make a statement that we'll be hearing more about this in the days to come.
Don't hold your breath.
Hah! You gotta point there.Question: How come we have not heard about this on the local non-biased news channels?
Perhaps because it's not so good news for the democraps?
I caught a bit of this on the Fox News channel in between watching the LSU - Alabama football game. Only caught John Kasich make a statement that we'll be hearing more about this in the days to come.
Don't hold your breath.
K
Kain99
Guest
Call me crazy but.....
I thought this was the whole reason we blew Iraq to kingdom come! Ya know, the whole war on terror thing.
I thought this was the whole reason we blew Iraq to kingdom come! Ya know, the whole war on terror thing.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Re: Call me crazy but.....
It's not that you're crazy; it's been a contention from the conservatives that Saddam and OSL have been in cahoots for some time now.
Only the left has been saying just as long that - this connection is BS, nothing to back it up.
If it could have been definitely proven that there were ties between the two, Pres. Bush would have had more justification for invading Iraq, and toppling that dictator Saddam.
(He did anyway, which was a good thing)
But no, the left did not want to hear that!
Originally posted by Kain99
I thought this was the whole reason we blew Iraq to kingdom come! Ya know, the whole war on terror thing.
It's not that you're crazy; it's been a contention from the conservatives that Saddam and OSL have been in cahoots for some time now.Only the left has been saying just as long that - this connection is BS, nothing to back it up.
If it could have been definitely proven that there were ties between the two, Pres. Bush would have had more justification for invading Iraq, and toppling that dictator Saddam.
(He did anyway, which was a good thing)
But no, the left did not want to hear that!
Re: Call me crazy but.....
This was only part of the reasoning for authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The following are the reasons offered by Congress:
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region.
Kain,Originally posted by Kain99
I thought this was the whole reason we blew Iraq to kingdom come! Ya know, the whole war on terror thing.
This was only part of the reasoning for authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The following are the reasons offered by Congress:
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region.
K
Kain99
Guest
Thank's Ken...
You are right! But I'm relived that it was a part... I got the feeling from Penncam that this was BIG news. I guess he's saying that some Dem somewhere finally agreed..
You are right! But I'm relived that it was a part... I got the feeling from Penncam that this was BIG news. I guess he's saying that some Dem somewhere finally agreed..
Re: Thank's Ken...
Some Dems did agree when they passed it. Roll Call votes show that it passed the House 296-133 (for the bill 215 R, 81 D - against the bill 6 R, 126 D, 1 I) and the Senate 77-23 (for 49 R, 28 D - against 1 R, 22 D). A point of interest, at least for me, was that neither Maryland Senator supported the effort.Originally posted by Kain99
You are right! But I'm relived that it was a part... I got the feeling from Penncam that this was BIG news. I guess he's saying that some Dem somewhere finally agreed..
Umm. 'Scuse me.
"DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."
"The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."
http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
"DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."
"The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."
http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
Speaking of Fox News (sic).
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
"The more closely you followed Fox, the more misperceptions you had," said Clay Ramsay, PIPA research director. "No other news outlet came anywhere near that."
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
"The more closely you followed Fox, the more misperceptions you had," said Clay Ramsay, PIPA research director. "No other news outlet came anywhere near that."
Last edited:
I narrowed the research down a bit and just tried pipa.org. That took me to their home page and told me a little about who they are. I tried a link to the questionairre used to collect this data, but again it just stalled my browser.
I am automatically suspicious of anything that supports one side of an argument over another so dramatically. (PBS vs. Fox) and so would like more info. It's always a good idea to find out who's got the axe to grind and why before you buy into data like this. Polls are easily skewed by the population sampled and the questions asked.
I am automatically suspicious of anything that supports one side of an argument over another so dramatically. (PBS vs. Fox) and so would like more info. It's always a good idea to find out who's got the axe to grind and why before you buy into data like this. Polls are easily skewed by the population sampled and the questions asked.
PIPA is
from the University of Maryland.
"The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) carries out research on public attitudes on international issues by conducting nationwide polls, focus groups and comprehensive reviews of polling conducted by other organizations. "
"PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland."
This link has links to each of those groups, which all appear to be U of M based.
http://www.pipa.org/
I am not having trouble opening the questionairre, but it's a pdf so I can't copy and paste anything. Looks pretty straightforward though.
from the University of Maryland.
"The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) carries out research on public attitudes on international issues by conducting nationwide polls, focus groups and comprehensive reviews of polling conducted by other organizations. "
"PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland."
This link has links to each of those groups, which all appear to be U of M based.
http://www.pipa.org/
I am not having trouble opening the questionairre, but it's a pdf so I can't copy and paste anything. Looks pretty straightforward though.
Last edited:
I have to toss the flag at any "study" that says people who support the war have misperceptions. And they say right off that anyone who supports Bush or the Republicans is suffering from misperceptions.
If you listen to a liberal news source, you are right on target and have no misperceptions. If you listen to anything else, you have misperceptions.
Doesn't any of this sound even remotely fishy to you, Maynard, or do you honestly believe this dreck?
If you listen to a liberal news source, you are right on target and have no misperceptions. If you listen to anything else, you have misperceptions.
Doesn't any of this sound even remotely fishy to you, Maynard, or do you honestly believe this dreck?
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Time to throw the ole' BS flag again. 
On the first question, the reports states first that "48 percent incorrectly believed that links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found." Then later it states that people are confused about Iraq's lack of involvement with 9/11. My question is: what questions were asked, and how were they asked? Also, as a loyal FNC watcher, I've repeatedly heard talk of how no one in the administration ever said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That allegation has been coming out of the left side of the media, not the Administration or FNC. And I guess this survey was taken before the latest information came out. Speaking of which... shame on you MGK for trying to change the meaning of a statement by only offering half the story.
The DoD statement says "The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions." It's not saying that the reports documented in the supporting annex are wrong, it just clarifies that the annex is not a DoD analysis and was not meant to be a basis for conclusions. This report was issued because reporters were misrepresenting the information as a DoD analysis.
Back to PIPA. "22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq." That's 1 in 5 respondents. I would guess you could find 1 in 5 who thought the Hussein boys were still alive. But, to be fair, I can see how someone who doesn't follow the news all that closely could have heard a report about something being found but didn't hear the report about how it turned out to be something else.
Lastly, "25% that believed world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq." What's the basis for this being a misperception? PIPA doesn't say. Here's my view... in the runup to the war, only three national leaders had issues with the war: those of Russia, France, and Germany. All three of these countries had very self-serving reasons for wanting to keep Hussein in power, so I don't think that you can look at them, and the people and presses they influence, as honest brokers of the truth. Does the fact that 100,000 international people stage an anti-war protest in some country mean more than the fact that a million of a country's citizens didn't join in the protest as a means of determining public support? I don't think so. There was no across-the-board international poll of support or non-support for the war, and this assumption that world public opinion was against the war is based on the rantings of a vast minority who happened to shout the loudest. Lastly, didn't all of the UN countries vote for the resolutions? Are we to believe that the governments of all these countries went against the wishes of the majority of their populations? More BS! These governments of these countries, unlike the people who concoted this poll, are smart enough to know that the yelling of a few does not constitute the feelings of the many.
Lastly, there's no mention of the demographics of the people questioned. Since the polls were taken by Knowledge Networks, a group focusing on colleges, one can assume that most of the respondents were college kids... i.e., people who aren't exactly the most credible people to ask questions of. This is especially the case since the polling was taken over the Internet (a seriously flawed approach) and the report only mentions "adults" instead of the traditional "males between 18-25, females between 15-30, etc." Anyone ever hear of a Knowledge Networks poll cited by ANY news agency? Yeah... me neither.
Once again, you can see how asking the right questions, of the right people, will yield the right results in a poll. And how things like facts mean little to people who will rush to believe any poll that supports their beliefs.
On the first question, the reports states first that "48 percent incorrectly believed that links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found." Then later it states that people are confused about Iraq's lack of involvement with 9/11. My question is: what questions were asked, and how were they asked? Also, as a loyal FNC watcher, I've repeatedly heard talk of how no one in the administration ever said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That allegation has been coming out of the left side of the media, not the Administration or FNC. And I guess this survey was taken before the latest information came out. Speaking of which... shame on you MGK for trying to change the meaning of a statement by only offering half the story.
The DoD statement says "The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions." It's not saying that the reports documented in the supporting annex are wrong, it just clarifies that the annex is not a DoD analysis and was not meant to be a basis for conclusions. This report was issued because reporters were misrepresenting the information as a DoD analysis.
Back to PIPA. "22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq." That's 1 in 5 respondents. I would guess you could find 1 in 5 who thought the Hussein boys were still alive. But, to be fair, I can see how someone who doesn't follow the news all that closely could have heard a report about something being found but didn't hear the report about how it turned out to be something else.
Lastly, "25% that believed world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq." What's the basis for this being a misperception? PIPA doesn't say. Here's my view... in the runup to the war, only three national leaders had issues with the war: those of Russia, France, and Germany. All three of these countries had very self-serving reasons for wanting to keep Hussein in power, so I don't think that you can look at them, and the people and presses they influence, as honest brokers of the truth. Does the fact that 100,000 international people stage an anti-war protest in some country mean more than the fact that a million of a country's citizens didn't join in the protest as a means of determining public support? I don't think so. There was no across-the-board international poll of support or non-support for the war, and this assumption that world public opinion was against the war is based on the rantings of a vast minority who happened to shout the loudest. Lastly, didn't all of the UN countries vote for the resolutions? Are we to believe that the governments of all these countries went against the wishes of the majority of their populations? More BS! These governments of these countries, unlike the people who concoted this poll, are smart enough to know that the yelling of a few does not constitute the feelings of the many.
Lastly, there's no mention of the demographics of the people questioned. Since the polls were taken by Knowledge Networks, a group focusing on colleges, one can assume that most of the respondents were college kids... i.e., people who aren't exactly the most credible people to ask questions of. This is especially the case since the polling was taken over the Internet (a seriously flawed approach) and the report only mentions "adults" instead of the traditional "males between 18-25, females between 15-30, etc." Anyone ever hear of a Knowledge Networks poll cited by ANY news agency? Yeah... me neither.
Once again, you can see how asking the right questions, of the right people, will yield the right results in a poll. And how things like facts mean little to people who will rush to believe any poll that supports their beliefs.
Maynard,
I am somewhat confused as to what you are attempting to present. Clearly it is evident that PIPA has an agenda to say that those that support the effort in Iraq are wrong. Unfortunately what PIPA failed to do was to review and include data form the most significant poll taken in October 2002. That being the one taken by our elected representatives when they authorized the President to use military force. Based on what PIPA states it seems that 69% in the House and 77% in the Senate had the same misperception as what their poll determined. So who is it that actually holds these misperceptions? The data says it is PIPA.
I am somewhat confused as to what you are attempting to present. Clearly it is evident that PIPA has an agenda to say that those that support the effort in Iraq are wrong. Unfortunately what PIPA failed to do was to review and include data form the most significant poll taken in October 2002. That being the one taken by our elected representatives when they authorized the President to use military force. Based on what PIPA states it seems that 69% in the House and 77% in the Senate had the same misperception as what their poll determined. So who is it that actually holds these misperceptions? The data says it is PIPA.