Yes, it’s true that 10 percent of Americans believe, incorrectly, that Barack Obama is a Muslim, but that’s not nearly as bad as some of the other stupid things people believe:
One relevant piece of context: Large minorities of Americans consistently say they hold wildly out-of-the-mainstream views, often specifically discredited beliefs. In some cases, those views should make them pretty profoundly alienated from one party or the other.
For instance:
22 percent believe President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.
30 percent believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
23 percent believe they’ve been in the presence of a ghost.
18 percent believe the sun revolves around the Earth.
And let’s not talk about the people who read the horoscope and think it’s real.
H/T: Coyote Blog
May 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
If only 30% believe that “Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” it just demonstrates the effectiveness of the moonbats.
Of course “Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.” He used them in the Iran-Iraq War of the early 1980s, and against the Kurds in the early 1990s. Remember “Chemical Ali,” recently sentenced/put to death for his crimes?
May 28th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Perhaps the statement should be revised to read
“Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at the time the Bush Administration said it had weapons of mass destruction.”
That, we know now, was most definitely not the case.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
“Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at the time the Bush Administration said it had weapons of mass destruction.”
Do we? The evidence is there that there were WMDs in Iraq (Senate has reported that chemical weapons have been found there), and that Saddam had not given up on his push for nuclear weapons, even if he had pulled back. And I do not think anyone can say Saddam Hussein himself was not a WMD, as the mass graveyards should more than prove that point.
If you want to make a point on Iraq, I’d suggest questioning those people who said we entered for oil. It is pretty clear with prices as high as they are now that that is not true.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
What part of there were no WMDs in Iraq when the Army got there didn’t you understand ?
Do I think the Bush Administration knowingly lied about the presence of WMDs in 2002-03 ? No, but they clearly relied upon intelligence that, in retrospect, was worthy of being questioned.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction at the time the Bush Administration said he had weapons of mass destruction. We’ve captured some of them. The difference is that Saddam did not have as many as we thought he did, and his WMD program was not as well developed as we thought it was.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Freddie,
Link please.
There may have been evidence of a defunct WMD program recovered but there were no functioning biological or chemical weapons and there was no nuclear weapons program.
After he was captured, Hussein admitted that there were no WMD’s in Iraq but he acted like there were (by, for example, stonewalling the United Nations) because he wanted his rivals in the region to think the program still existed when, in fact, it had pretty much ended after Gulf War I.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
He had older weapons, some of which may not have been functional. His WMD programs were not moving foward quickly, but he was still making an effort.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Worth a war and the creation of a new haven for al Qaeda ?
Not in my opinion.
And I intially supported the war, mind you.