Yeah.
What's the deal with Mr. Cheney - he is in Iraq - no he isn't - yes he is - no he isn't.

Human cloning? OK, but why should they clone Dick Cheney of all people?

You have got to be kidding. Who in America didn't know? The people with their fingers in their ears jumping on one foot and yelling, LA-LA-LA-LA, I'M-NOT-HEARING-YOU!!!!

The sanctions on Iraq were already failing at the conclusion of the Clinton administration and the usual cast in the old and new administration was running around breathlessly with the vapors. Note that by December 2001, Judith Miller was planting pinted alarming tales of weapons in the hands of Iraqi madmen (to add to her breathless pre-war, UN inspection crap), and the Atta/Czech/Iraq connection being advertised up and down the government's official news organs. By early 2002 we had also started to preposition major troop forces nowhere near Afghanistan and divert money authorized for Afghanistan to other projects in the Iraqi proximity.

You just can't spend $700M in the dark and quietly. Moving that money around creates waves. And you can't put a major mass of the military in Kuwait and not use them. The military knew full well. The newspapers of record knew full well. Donahue knew full well. Hell, dogs across America kept barking at the TV ominously -- that should have told us there was a low frequency rumble underfoot.

Even so, as I recall, the president had like 80% support when he invaded Iraq in 2003. LA-LA-LA-LA...

Zogby, March 14-15 2003: "Would you support or oppose the war against Iraq if the US waged war without significant UN or international support?"

Support: 47%
Oppose: 49%

And, uh, http://tinyurl.com/yewnr7

Well on March 14-15 we hadn't invaded Iraq. That occurred on March 19; I think it would be better to gauge the President's support, say a week or two later --

So for me, twhat I remember was from Pew: here. Go to the chart that shows Decision to go to war was...

As was the case prior to the war's start, there are starkly different views of military action across racial and ethnic lines. While whites believe taking action in Iraq was the right thing to do by more than four-to-one (77% to 18%), blacks are evenly divided over the question. Two-thirds of Hispanic respondents say going to war was the right decision, while a quarter disagree.

The gender gap also varies across racial groups, as minority women express some of the strongest antiwar sentiment of all demographic groups. Among white respondents, women are 10% less likely than men to say that military action was the right thing to do (72% compared with 82% of men). There is a much larger gap between black women and black men over the issue ­ just one-in-three black women think war was the right choice, compared with 57% of black men (a 24-point gender gap). A similar gap is seen between Hispanic women (57% right decision) and men (78%).

The gender gap in support for war in Iraq is especially large among the youngest and oldest respondents. In the youngest group ­ ages 18-24 ­ just over half of women (52%) say the U.S. made the right decision in going to war, while 82% of men feel this way (a gap of 30 points). And among those ages 25-29, the gap is 21 points (men 85%, women 64%). At the other end of the age spectrum, there also is a large gender gap (23 points). More than seven-in-ten men (73%) age 75 and older say the U.S. made the right decision, compared with only 50% of women. But unlike the youngest women, 44% of whom think war was the wrong decision, older women are no more opposed to military action than their male counterparts. Women age 75 and older are simply much less likely than men to express an opinion about the war at all.

But, look I don't blame you for the collective amnesia. We had many fewer bloggers on the front lines back in 2002-2003 to keep the press straight on what our collective recollections ought to be.

Actually I just realized that your question dealt with the participatory support of the UN, while my answer deals with the support of the war at the outset.

It may be better to look at the week of 25 March:

There also has been growing public antagonism toward anti-war voices. Fully 45% of respondents in recent days have said the have heard too much from those who oppose the war, an increase from 37% during the survey's first three days. Last month, only about a quarter of Americans (24%) said they were hearing too much from war opponents.

...

With the start of hostilities in Iraq, there has been a marked decline in the number of people who say they have heard too little from war opponents. Just 17% say they have heard too little from those opposed to military action, while more than twice as many (40%) say they have heard too much from war opponents. These numbers reflect a turnaround from last month when only a quarter (24%) said they were hearing too much and fully 42% wanted to hear more from anti-war Americans.

That would be the LA-LA-LA we don't want to hear any more treasonous talk from anti-war America haters.

Please look at the first chart that shows 78% think that Military force was the right decision.

That AWB thang is a hell of a story. If the new Democrat-controlled Congress wants to do the Australian people a favour they should look into this. The terms of reference of the Cole enquiry mentioned above are designed to assiduously avoid investigating the Oz government - just the 'independent' AWB, which was apparently the worst offender amongst those organisations breaching the sanctions under cover of the Oil for Food program.

Ted,
But how much of that support was based on the lies, the mushroom cloud etc. Even the politicians are saying the would have reconsidered their decision now knowing the true situation.

But how much of that support was based on the lies, the mushroom cloud etc. Even the politicians are saying the would have reconsidered their decision now knowing the true situation.

I'm not trying to give Jonathan a hard time on the Australia info - it's confirming what we knew, not what we didn't know. Just making the observation that we've got a lot of excuses that the government lied to us about the war and seem to have collective amnesia of the leadup. Particularly now when the stuff isn't working. I think our memory would be working differently if the war went swimmingly (for us). And I think the politicians are cowardly scum that are distancing themselves because the electorate hates failure, not because it made much difference for what reason we went to war in 2001-2003. In 2001-2002, the politicians reflected the blood-lust of the electorate, so they voted for the authorization -- it was low, low risk -- they reflected the sentiments I indicated earlier in the polls.

I find it hard to believe that the government lied compellingly and abnormally, because you'd have to be some kind of naive to think the government tells the truth and thus we're surprised that, gasp, lies on occasion.

During 2001/2002 we put a lot of men and equipment in the field. I saw a LOT of convoys on the highway to destinations unknown and asked myself, hmm -- where's this all going? Will the rotational costs be justified if it's not used? If it's not used won't it indicate weak leadership to send 500K men to the middle east only to have them return six-months later? Won't it be viewed that accepting any compliance by Saddam would be postponing the problem (like his dad did 10 years prior). Wouldn't this be used as an excuse to clean house once an for all? Are we apt to let the UN set our security policy because they think we're unilateral? How would THAT play with the average American? Don't we have a right to preemptive war?

A lot of coded reporting occurred that indicated precisely what was going to happen, and yet, political forces both on the right and left told us that it was undecided if we'd go to war. Only the clueless believed that. I'm sorry if characterizing it so offends anyone.

People want to be lied to obliquely because it absolves them of responsibility and provides plausible deniability. And now we can all deny involvement or prior knowledge of the war (except for that pesky Google). But look, when the PRESS is being patriotic, you know that you're going to get a pack of lies on a range of issues. And the press is still being patriotic vs. truthful because, well, because it's owned by large media with no further responsibility other than selling us crap. Our choice is to be comfortable by following the patriotic press or uncomfortable by demanding truth from the press and ourselves.

We'll go through this exercise again after Iran.

Our choice is to be comfortable by following the patriotic press or uncomfortable by demandingtruth from the press and ourselves.

We'll go through this exercise again after Iran.
Posted by: Ted at November 24, 2006 02:18 PM

Ted,
I have not seen many who truely demand truth from the banaly patriotic press.What happened was that a majority of Americans became flag waving, banal, patriots following the press right after 9/11.Those of us who formed the peace initiative before the 2nd Iraq war knew damn well that Bush et., al. were lying and that Iraq was destined to become another Vietnam.
For that effort,the largest,world wide peace marches ever were labeled a "focus group"by Bush, and the idiot MSM either bought it or was bought(a more plausible theory)or they just wanted the damn war(an even more plausible theory).It is not sound judgement to trust the press in this country anymore.They have sold us down the river.
And if they back Bush`s plan to go into Iran,as they seem to be doing,we`re going to be in a world of hurt--like we aren`t already.I pray daily that we come to our senses before it`s too late.But I also am aware of how insane our leaders appear to be.God help us all.

Ted, half the damn country still thinks Saddam had wmd and was in league with al qaeda. A third think we already found them and want us to stay in Iraq cuz otherwise al qaeda would own the oil that is rightfully ours, to paraphrase the president.

You might be the one hopping up and down on one foot with your eyes shut and screaming LA-LA-LA. Much of the rest of the country is obediently listening to a constant barage of lies, like - to actually stay on topic here - these ones.

My mother-in-law's next-door neighbor's son worked for a division of Halliburton. In 2002, he was located in Kuwait where he and his coworkers were preparing for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent contract work which the company already held.

I knew in 2002 that we would invade Iraq because my mother-in-law told me. After that, I could never get over the idea that this entire war was primarily profit driven. If not, we sure got the industrial half of the complex on board early.

The amusing thing is that war isn’t profitable. Wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in order to make hundreds of millions of dollars for those with political connections is economically insane. Thankfully for Pharaoh and his pet industries, the hundreds of billions of dollars in operating expenses are forcibly paid by other people, while the ‘profits’ are theirs to keep. War is just the redistribution of wealth by other means.

The amusing thing is that war isn’t profitable. Wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in order to make hundreds of millions of dollars for those with political connections is economically insane. Thankfully for Pharaoh and his pet industries, the hundreds of billions of dollars in operating expenses are forcibly paid by other people, while the ‘profits’ are theirs to keep. War is just the redistribution of wealth by other means.

resposted to fix the mangled bits