Remember; the US majority DID NOT SUPPORT bush's war on Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

The US majority OPPOSED bush's illegal war of aggression against the Iraqi people until AFTER Baghdad was burning.

That's a FACT.



US Public Want to Give UN Inspectors More Time

Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found growing doubts about an attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Fifty-eight percent said they would like to see more evidence, and 71 percent said the United States should make public its own evidence if the U.N. inspectors can't find hard evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

In one clear sign of public caution on Iraq, 43 percent of respondents said the U.N. inspectors should have as much time as they like to scour Iraq. A quarter said the inspectors should have "a few months" or more. Another quarter supported a deadline of a few weeks or less for the inspections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A23564-2003Jan21

Bush Hasn't Made Case for War in Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0124-04.htm

Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war

More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm

Poll: Majority of Americans oppose unilateral action against Iraq

A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001415.html

For example, before the invasion, polls showed that Americans opposed invading Iraq without U.N. support and strongly supported giving weapons inspectors more time, reflecting the public's overwhelming view that Iraq was a long-range, not an immediate, threat.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0305.teixeira.html

As for bush's (laff) "COALITION"...

In most countries less than 10% of the populace supported an invasion of Iraq without UN sanction...Even in the US only approximately 33% of the population said they were in favor of a unilateral invasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war



When UN approval as well as allied support is specified, an overwhelming majority would favor invasion under this condition, while an overwhelming majority opposes proceeding without it.
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/multilat_support.cfm

A new poll found that most Americans are opposed to invading Iraq if it means significant Iraqi civilian casualties; a majority of those polled also said that they were more concerned about the economy than about Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction and that Congress should be more critical of President Bush's war plans.
http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2002-10-08.html

***

An American majority only supported attacking Iraq IF the UN Security Council backed the attack (they did not) and IF there was a true multi-national coalition (there was not) and IF the weapons inspectors were allowed the time they needed to finish their inspections (they were not; BUSH kicked them out BEFORE they were done) and if the imspectors found WMD (they found none). Only after bombs were dropping on the people of Iraq did a slim US majority "rally 'round the troops" and support bush's illegal war of aggression against the people of Iraq.

FACT.

[babylonsister]

1. LynnTheDem is back and is on fire! Go, girlfriend!

Great reminders of how deluded everyone has/had become!:yourock:

[emdee]

2. I remember this....

one freeper actually said that she didn't remember there being inspectors who had to leave because Bush was invading. How do they accomplish such brainwashing? I remember everything you've printed here - it wasn't that long ago. How can they forget and pretend it didn't happen?

emdee

[BillZBubb]

5. The 'convenient' amnesia of the conservative.

It is a very prevalent condition. If they had any memory, they wouldn't be conservatives.

[BillZBubb]

3. But a lot of them are sheeple.

Once the Chimperor invaded, they were gung ho. The poll cannot measure how much people really opposed the insanity versus just "thought it wasn't a good idea at the time".

Rove, like all propagandists, knew that once the invasion was a fait accompli, the sheeple would line up to support it.

[waiting for hope]

4. Bookmarked for future

agruements...Thanks!

[Redstone]

6. Funny, some people here seem to think otherwise.

I don't understand why they want to make excuses for being fooled, much less admit to having been fooled, but it's there tonight.

I felt back then as if I were alone on a vast prairie, when I asked people "do you really think any of this actually makes Bush any smarter?" Even my own wife beat me up for saying that, but hey, who was right in the end?

Having been in a war sharpens your bullshit detector when the drums statr beating, I guess.

Redstone

[OneBlueSky]

7. nor did a majority back the election of George W. Bush . . .

as I recall, Al Gore got about a half million votes more than the chimp the first time around . . . and God knows how many more the second time around (contrary to what they want us to believe) . . .

[Peace Patriot]

8. K&R! This is so important! We MUST strategize from a position of

truth and reality. Most--a big majority--of Americans didn't want a pre-emptive war by Bush Most Americans didn't trust Bush. They would agree to the use of US military force only if there was world consensus that it was necessary. This unnecessary war was shoved down peoples' throats just like every other Bush policy. There was a brief reversal of the numbers, from approx. 60/40 opposition to 60/40 support only while US troops were at maximum risk during the invasion, then the numbers quickly flipped back the other way, with the failure to find any WMDs, and never really changed; the opposition only got stronger.

If we don't strategize from a position of truth and reality, we will make the false assumption that there is something wrong with the American people. There is NOTHING wrong with the American people. They don't need to be convinced. They need REPRESENTATION OF THEIR VIEWS IN WASHINGTON DC! What there is something wrong with is the election SYSTEM, in which, a) no antiwar candidate is ever permitted to achieve the nomination of either party, due to the dominance of our government and political power system by war profiteers and war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and b) as of 2004, we had a completely non-transparent voting system, in which two rightwing Bushite corporations 'counted' 80% of the nation's votes using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code in the new electronic voting systems--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it--with virtually no audit/recount controls, a corrupt and unverifiable voting system brought to you by the two biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney, with their $4 billion "Help America Vote Act" boondoggle. It's nuts! IT'S NUTS! Bushite corporations counting the votes behind a veil of secrecy!

If we don't face this reality--that the American people have been DISENFRANCHISED--not only will we be unable to devise a strong, unified strategy to get our country back, our democracy will be over!

It would be a far different problem if people had gone fascist and were goose-stepping in the streets to Bush's tune. The evidence for this is utterly negligible. There is virtually no evidence of massive war worship or Bush worship in this country. Where were the "Nazi youth" parading around in uniforms itching to battle Saddam Hussein for the Fatherland? They did not and do not exist. Where was there any significant display of large numbers of people calling for pre-emptive war by Bush, or even supporting it? They would have had plenty of air time. The war profiteering corporate news monopolies would have made much of it, you can be sure. They made as much as they could over what little there was.

But what there was evidence for was TENS OF THOUSANDS of people marching AGAINST the war.

Further, there is much corroborating evidence of a great progressive American majority that goes unrepresented in corporate news and opinion, and unrepresented in government--revealed overwhelmingly in issue polls over a long period of time. This country hasn't forgotten its values. The government has forgotten the people!

THAT is the problem! And it is a problem that involves both Democratic and Republican officials--in power by virtue of a corrupted, non-transparent, unverifiable, private, rightwing corporate-controlled election system.

THAT is why good people lose elections--inexplicably. THAT is why we have a Congress full of assholes. THAT is why we have a White House and executive branch full of liars, mass murderers, torturers, thieves, defiers of the law, war profiteers, and traitors.

The American people do not agree with these assholes and criminals. The American people are not uninformed and they are not stupid. They are dismpowered, demoralized, unrepresented and DISENFRANCHISED.

[lebkuchen]

9. You should work at the Library of Congress

You'd be great there.

Thanks for the info, as always. :)

[Solly Mack]

10. Thank you!!!!!

I thought I was going senile but you have saved me ...until next time I misplace my car keys, that is. :)

[Disturbed]

11. The RW Media Corps won't tell the truth but

Lynn does. Thank you.

[Hissyspit]

12. kick - I remember that well. The poll numbers in support of the war

shot up after the invasion because U.S. troops were in harm's way and people were hoping for the best.

The SAME WORDS - "Do you support military action in Iraq?," asked in a poll question BEFORE the ground action/violence starts - DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING when the context changes - "Do you support military action in Iraq?" asked in a poll question AFTER the war starts: see how the connotation of the word 'support' changes when the context changes...?

Any second-year linguistics student could tell you about this, but this kind of manipulative shit is used by the right-wing ALL THE TIME to mislead and control. It's the same words, but it is NOT the same question anymore.