Comments on: Mixed Reviews On Iraq War

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:05:41 +0000

Because it would be pointless with a Republican controlled House and Senate. It’s a non-starter and would only work to further divide us, since the push would have to be led by members of Congress.

And these numbers only speak to the fact that even though people think they were misled (lied to), they don’t really care. To me, that’s extremely sad, no matter how you look at it.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:37:53 +0000

If people believe they were misled, why do they/we push for the resignation of the President?

By: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:12:39 +0000

I wouldn’t assume that there is necessarily any causality between the numbers. Remember, the ‘average’ individual doesn’t necesssarily think in logical terms. I know a small number of people who now think we were intentionally mislead, but will continue to be positive on any question of War, simply because that’s how they interpert patriotism.

And, it does appear as a rather small number that flipped there… so I don’t know that one could draw any conclusions about the majority of Americans.

By: Pug

Pug — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:06:59 +0000

Unfortunately, we’d also still have a future Islamic republic installed by US power. If that isn’t a mistake, I don’t know what is.

I supported the invasion of Iraq based on the premises presented by the Bush Administration. But I’m one of the 51% now who believe we were deliberately misled. I don’t know what we should do at this point.

I think lots of folks have that Oliver Hardy feeling: “Another fine mess you’ve gotten us into, Stanley”.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:09:52 +0000

Not really. Common sense suggests that the two majority positions (that the Bush administration misled the public into supporting the war in Iraq, and that the war is worthwhile) would be mutually exclusive. By that reasoning, only 4% - the overlap between the 51% who believe we were misled and the 53% who still favor the war - could be said to support both positions.

Now, this number could go higher if you take into account those who would support, or oppose, the war in any event, regardless of the circumstances of how it began. Committed pacifists, for example, could be expected to oppose the war whether or not it was begun on a false pretense. The more people there are like this, who oppose the war even if they don’t believe Bush lied, the greater of an overlap there will be between the “Bush misled us” majority and the “war is worth it” majority.

It could also go higher when you factor in the “water under the bridge” mentality; i.e. that the war the U.S. started (when we were fighting a mostly conventional war against Saddam Hussein’s regime) has so little in common with the war as it stands now (when we’re fighting a mostly guerilla-style war against mostly non-Iraqi jihadis amid the ruins of the aforementioned regime) that the original U.S. motive for going to war is all but irrelevant - water under the bridge.

(Full disclosure: I happen to share the WUtB viewpoint. After all, even if we had actually found a big cache of WMDs in Iraq after Saddam’s fall, that wouldn’t have changed the current situation one bit. We’d still have had the Baathist insurgency. We’d still have had the foreign jihadis join (and slowly displace) that insurgency. We’d still have had kidnappings and beheadings. We’d still have had the ethnic and sectarian conflicts. We’d still have had Abu Ghraib. I think you get the picture by now. Even if the war in Iraq was not about al Qaeda at the outset, it most definitely is now.)