On 7/23/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another explanation is that public opinion polls are notoriously very poor at dealing with very complex issues. (And I'd also add that two-year-old opinion polls are poor at describing that nation's opinions on current events.) For example, it is a *fact* that before the invasion Saddam Hussein had a chemical weapons program - we have crystal clear records of him using them.
The invasion is not a current event. The occupation is the current event. The invasion -- and the election -- were more than two years ago. What is complex about this question, to pick one major example -- should the US have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda? Is that too complex for ordinary people to answer yes or no? Do we need to fund a think tank to analyze its nuanced meaning? As a second example, if the poll had asked "did Saddam Hussein
comply with the Chapter VII UN Security Resolutions requiring Iraq's disarmament of WMD's" do you think that more Republicans or more Democrats would answer correctly. I'll bet dollars to donuts on the Republicans.
I suspect that the vast majority of Americans, when asked if Iraq had complied with Chapter 672.4 of the UN Security Resolutions, requiring disarmament of model airplanes, they'd say no. Which is to say that the vast majority believed that the country was being extremely uncooperative. And... what's the correct answer to your question? As far as I know, it is yes, as our intelligence agencies had concluded. Yet our leaders would have had us believe that it was no. In reality, Iraq's lack of cooperation had to do with inspections, not WMDs. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
