Polling, Reporting On Iraq War Divided After Five Years

The USA Today, with Gallup, delivers cryptic polls paired with some cryptic reporting on US public opinion on the Iraq war.  The upshot is that their summary table claims much more support for troop withdrawals than either their text or their detailed tables.  No, you cannot imagine my surprise.

Here is the headline:

Opposition to Iraq war is divided after 5 years

Can't argue with that.  Now, here is the USA Today Modest Summary, later highlighted by Glenn Greenwald (yes, it is an ongoing mystery here whether he actually reads his own links; we take for granted his readers do not, and offer some old fun here and here).  The Modest Summary is buried at about paragraph two hundred, but Greenwald found it:

In the USA TODAY poll, six in 10 Americans said the United States should set a timetable for withdrawal and stick to it no matter what. Just 35% said U.S. troops should remain until the situation in Iraq gets better, a number as low as it's ever been.

In a sidebar table USA Today presents something the same figures:

Which would be better for the United States?
Keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better: 35%
Set a timetable for removing troops and stick to it regardless of what is going on in Iraq: 60%

OK, that seems clear enough - 60% want to get out.  But wait!  Most of the USA Today story covers the divisions within the American public and is much more nuanced.  The 35% who want to stand and fight is reported as 40% in the text and a supporting table (Your guess is as good as mine, or better); the 60% who want to remove troops regardless of what is going on actually seem to be saying something quite different, and eventually we are informed that about 20% of respondents think the US should assure the stability of Iraq before withdrawing our troops.  Here we go:

The survey finds the 40% of Americans who want to stay the course in Iraq are relatively united — confident the invasion was justified and the consequences of withdrawing too soon disastrous. 

Reiterating, I have no idea why that is 40% and not 35%; my flash player needs to be updated for me to crack open the Gallup link.  Now for the nuance:

However, the 60% who call the invasion a mistake and want to set a timetable to get out are fractured into four distinct groups, a USA TODAY analysis of public opinion toward the war concludes.

They include those who want U.S. troops out immediately and others, like Tease, who argue America has an obligation to improve Iraq's stability before going.

Wait a second - the 60% who want to get out "regardless of what is going on in Iraq" includes people who "argue America has an obligation to improve Iraq's stability before going"?  How does that work?  (Suggested soundtrack - Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now...)

There is plenty of text but also a helpful summary table, with five categories as follows (I am cutting and pasting the table and the text together, using italics).  Let's look at the categories identified by USA Today:

We will win: 40% (7 in 10 back McCain)

Invasion wrong, but U.S. obliged to stay in Iraq: 20%  They opposed the invasion but believe the United States must establish reasonable stability in Iraq before withdrawing troops (This group is included in the "Out Regardless" 60% figure, but I can't understand why).

It makes no difference: 10% This cluster, including one in 10 Americans, calls the invasion a mistake and backs a timetable for withdrawal but declines to assess the consequences of keeping troops in Iraq or bringing them home.

Get out now: 17%  - Those who want to get out now, whatever the consequences, include nearly one in five Americans. They see no U.S. obligation to establish better security in Iraq before leaving, arguing that the U.S. troop presence is provoking violence and making things worse for Iraqis and Americans.

The profoundly pessimistic: 12%  The most pessimistic, just over one in 10 Americans, say the conflict has been a disaster for both the United States and Iraq, and they see no end in sight. Most expect a significant number of U.S. troops to remain there for at least five more years.

Elsewhere in the story we are told this about the politics:

Among the groups of anti-war voters, McCain draws support from one-third of those who are the most pessimistic about the future of the Iraq conflict, a group that includes a mix of Republicans and Democrats. In a head-to-head contest against Clinton, McCain also wins one-third of those who want to get out but feel obliged to achieve more security first. He has argued to them that, whatever differences they have on the wisdom of the invasion, he is the candidate best able to stabilize Iraq.

McCain's appeal to some anti-war voters makes it possible that he could put together a majority coalition — or at least neutralize the issue — despite the downturn in public opinion toward the war.

Let's add that 70% of the "We Will Win" crowd backs McCain.  Only 70%?

At this point I am not able to figure out how the USA Today managed to summarize their numbers as they did - by my reading, 60% of respondents want to keep troops in Iraq until it has been stabilized, regardless of how they feel about the wisdom of the war effort.   Against that, 27% favor unconditional withdrawal, and 10% think all roads lead to ruin.

A GUESS:  We are offered this about the 20% seeking stability before we leave:

Youngest group; mostly Democratic, liberal (and Barack supporters).

Evidently USA Today just couldn't bring themselves to lump this group with the Victory crowd.

And FWIW, I would have no problem being classed in the 20% that think, well after the fact, that the war as fought by Bush/Rumsfled was a mistake but also believe we need to focus on what to do in 2009 rather than what we should have done in 2003.

 

Comments

[kim]

She leaves me, she leaves me not.
=====================

[Neo]

The ever more popular Iraq War.

Speaking of not reading their links, a few "progressive" sites had this story around the beginning of the week ..

They knew, but did nothing

It's cute. It will leave you breathless, in a vacuum.

When you get to the end, it's obvious what they knew .. nothing.

The Onion would be proud to call this their's, if it was.

[TexasToast]

I'm in the 20% group (mistake, but...), but I don't lump myself with the "victory" crowd - closer to profoundly pessimistic (If/when we leave, everybody tries to fill the power vacuum....) - Sadrist "ceasefire" stops, Sunni resurgence, Kurds seize Kirkuk etc.....

[ke_future]

i lump myself in the crowd that
1) thought the decision to go to war was the right one
2) think that the post-invasion work was botched (thank you mr bremer)
3) believe that we have an obligation there
4) think that if mccain wins in november we have a chance of winning the long fight

but i'm not sold on mccain overall. i could never vote for either obama or clinton, so I will vote for mccain. but that's not the same as supporting him

[Anon]

"profoundly pessimistic" {not in this case thouh}

Usually that's a democrat.

Tell them what is wrong with America. Damn it!

They focus on that-because there is so much wrong with the liberal and no one to blame-except those outside forces-the hell with responsibility.

Loathesome creatures they are-and they know it.

[Anon]

Dude-honestly what the hell are you doing?

Reading Glenn Greenwald that is-something his sock puppet probably doesn't do anymore even.

[hit and run]

No discussion of the Pew Research poll?

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

I gotta run and go lose a bunch of money play poker, but it's an interesting article. Like...

Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should “keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized,” according to polling data assembled by Pew at Politico’s request

Sorry I can't stay and chat. Enjoy your evening.

[Pofarmer]

Did they do both surveys at once?

Just how ignorant are Americans, anyway? These days, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone defending the nation’s collective intellect–and, in some cases, for good reason. Two thirds of Americans between ages of 18-24 can’t find Iraq on a map. When asked what function DNA serves, two thirds of Americans have no idea. And in a recent survey that would have Copernicus turning in his grave, one in five American adults believe that the sun revolves around the earth

From coldfury.com

[Pofarmer]

53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq.

The question is, why isn't it 100%. What, a few Jihadi's and Bathist deadenders are gonna force us out?

[Paul]

Whenever you try to make sense of a newspaper article that carries even a single number remember that a room full of reporters with their shoes and socks off would have a very hard time counting to ten.

[Rick Ballard]

In September of 2003 I was involved in a discussion of "success v failure" wrt Iraq and wrote the following (to prevent severe hindsight blindness):

1. Restoration of the power grid to its best operating level between 1990 - 2002. check
2. All schools opening and functioning at 1990 - 2002 levels. check
3. Health services operating at levels superior to 1990 - 2002 levels. Hospitals open with sufficient supplies and medical training occuring at level superior to 1990 - 2002. check
4. Autonomous rule by regional authorities with selection/election to regional councils based upon a representative system. check
5. Referendum on the new constitution at least scheduled for a vote on a given date. check
6. Courts functional to highest appellate level. check
7. Economy operating on a level equal to 1990 - 2002. check
8. Establishment of new military force structure sufficient for defense against territorial incursion. check
9. Restoration of oilfield production to 2002 levels with continuing ongoing improvement in infrastructure. check
10. Draw down of US forces to 40% of maximum force requirements in 2003. nope
If you can post a similiar list, at least there will be something by which your future comments can be measured. Otherwise I fear that we will have to endure endless iterations of 'yes, but' responses to any progress made.

A bit later I would probably have added permanent basing rights. I didn't care what the "polls said" then and I don't care what they say now. Keeping a knife at Iran's throat is a worthwhile objective for the forseeable future.

My only disagreement with the conduct of the operation concerned the leniency of the ROE from '04 through '06.

[GMax]

Whenever you try to make sense of a newspaper article that carries even a single number remember that a room full of reporters with their shoes and socks off would have a very hard time counting to ten.

With one notable exception. The Wall Street Journal employs a very large number of reporters who are literate in numbers and accounting. When I was with the FHLB of Dallas back in the days of the FSLIC crisis, we had to speak to the press on occasion. It was drilled into us that we could not dumb it down enough for a regular newswriter. It was going to get garbled so we tried to say very little that had numbers of concepts in it. But the one surprise was the WSJ reporters, who not only were quite literate but could carry on a conversation about the topic and as we use to say " had a second and third question" to follow up the initial one, that probed deeper and deeper.

Since it is possible for a journalism major to acquire this knowledge, its quite a disgrace that about 90% dont have it, dont get it and wont even try.

[M. Simon]

Best mistake we ever made.

If we don't do a 1975 it will change the ME.

BTW I have supported this war since 2002. Maybe before. 'Course I thought nuking Mecca was a good idea too. You can't always get what you want.

I'm no longer interested in nuking Mecca. I think Islam can be turned. I still think taking Saddam out was a good idea.

[Jim Miller]

That only 70 percent of those who think we will win are backing McCain does not surprise me. Currently, one the arguments going around among those who oppose the war is that it is too expensive. So, a person can simultaneously believe that we are winning -- and that we shouldn't be there because it costs too much. (That position allows them to admit that there is success on the ground and still oppose continuing operations.)

Incidentally, these questions often leave out the other side of the range of actions, increasing our forces to win more quickly. When those questions were asked during the Vietnam war, they always drew a significant response. In fact, there were (as I recall) about 20 percent in the late 1960s who explicitly favored using nuclear weapons in order to win!

And there were always a significant number during the Vietnam war who thought we should "win or get out". I don't doubt that there are many who feel that way now, though the questions commonly used by pollsters don't identify that group.

[Other Tom]

Saw the Pew stuff on Fox--hard to believe two simultaneous polls can tell such different stories.

[clarice]

Ism't it? Of course, Pew has been on my sh&^ list since its role in CFR was made known. I don't trust them or Glappup or actually most of them at all.

[clarice]

Glappuk, of course is Gallup when a cat isn't jumping around distracting the poster.

[Rick Ballard]

Here's the entire Pew survey.

I find the "Democrat Base Fissures" to be more interesting than the Iraq views.

Overall, 20% of white Democratic voters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. That is twice the percentage of white Democrats who say they would support McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup. Older Democrats (ages 65 and older), lower-income and less educated Democrats also would support McCain at higher levels if Obama rather than Clinton is the party's nominee.

Go BHO!

[Ann]

President George W. Bush is kicking butt while the patriotic democrat congress is sleeping and doing nothing about FISA.

Unprecedented Coalition strike nails the Haqqani Network in North Waziristan

[clarice]

Of course the media outside of Fox won't cover the Wright stuff. And McCain and Clinton cannot. Time for the 527s...I am watching this stuff pieced together in a lovely campaign ad..

[sbw]

People who believe the war is too expensive admit to jarring ingnorance. It cannot be mind-numbing ignorance because such a mind cannot be numbed any further.

They have not the understanding to deduce what must be at stake, so, seeing nothing of value, the war is too expensive. When nothing is of value, anything is enough to defeat them.

They should be embarrassed, but they haven't the wit.

[Rick Ballard]

"People who believe the war is too expensive admit to jarring ignorance."

Sophists admit to nothing but their inherent ability to mistake the potential to pretend to reason for the actual ability to reason. Chamberlain was cheered upon his return from Munich and Republicans had much to fear from McClellan.

Until Gettysburg and Sherman's jaunt through Georgia, of course. And that unpleasantness about Poland, in Chamberlain's case.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

You know, I'm actually being very successful as a freelancer now writing articles where I take something dumb that's "common knowledge" --- which in this case means something said by a politician and repeated blindly by the press --- and actually evaluating it. The crazy part is, most of this doesn't require anything much from my fourteen years of college except that I'm mildly numerate and accustomed to asking whether something someone said made sense.

That this combination apparently escapes "journalists" puzzles and worries me.

[Other Tom]

You're doing the Lord's work, Charlie. I suspect that the "3 million homeless" has been so thoroughly discredited that it's no longer considered common knowledge.

How about the 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed in the first four years of the war? (That's 411 per day. Challenge: find any report of 400 Iraqi civilians being killed on any single day in the war. Pick your day.)

The newest one is going to be the "$3 trillion war." That one should be extremely easy pickings; I saw a very good start on Fox yesterday. Have at it Charlie, and maybe that particular piece of "knowledge" will nevr become common.

But of course it will forever be common knowledge that Dillinger's you-know-what is pickled in the Smithsonian. There's no stamping that one out, but I guess that's OK...

[Other Tom]

Lovely excerpt from an Investor's Business Daily about Obama and his ten admirals and generals:

"The question is not whether Obama is qualified to lead, but where he would lead us. Military leadership does not necessarily impart wisdom. For every George Patton, there is a George McClellan. McClellan, who badly led Union forces until Abraham Lincoln turned things over to Grant and Sherman, thought the Civil War was a dumb war and ran against the president.

"Lincoln, in Obama's parlance, could also have been accused of having an 'arrogant bunker mentality.'

"We can debate whether a war is dumb. But once our commander in chief commits our force, there are two types of war — those you win and those you lose. President Reagan's strategy in the Cold War was, 'we win, they lose.' Obama and his hallelujah chorus may not have noticed, but in Iraq we're winning. How dumb is that?"

[kim]

Rasputin's razz-a-ma-tazz.
==========================

[kim]

Look, it's too late. Bush's Three Trillion Dollar ego trip ruined Social Securtiy and caused the housing crisis, putting three million people on the street. And is threatening your job. Get with it folks, how can you not hope for relief from this Republican disaster.
============================

[RichatUF]

I'm going OT for a minute, but Bill in AZ and Jane commented in a previous thread about a Pentagon study that was trumpeted as showing that Iraq and al Qeada had "no operational link". Well the guys at Powerline have a link to the report.

Seems that journalists can't get party id right or read english:

graf-

Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

and more

State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000.

and here is an interesting section

Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign "fighters" drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians, Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives

[PaulL]

****Unprecedented Coalition strike nails the Haqqani Network in North Waziristan****

Excellent news but it is asinine to call off strikes because women or children are around. All that winds up doing is making any intelligent terrorist keep a woman or kid nearby him at all times.

[kim]

Well, asinine to say that's why the strikes were called off. Unless, it's not true at all, and designed to give them a false sense of security by keeping the innocent around.
================

[Daryl Herbert]

Did you catch this:

Invasion wrong, but U.S. obliged to stay in Iraq: 20% They opposed the invasion but believe the United States must establish reasonable stability in Iraq before withdrawing troops

How many people in that group actually opposed the invasion of Iraq in the past tense sense, and how many supported it at the time and changed their mind along the way? This is not an insignificant point. A great many people supported it back in 2002, when Dems were whining that Bush was "politicizing the war" for the midterm elections, and in general people saw a vote for the GOP as pro-war and a vote for the Dems as anti-war. This group, that wants to stay until more stability is achieved if possible, is probably heavily Republican and more than half of them probably voted for the GOP back in 2002 (if they voted at all).

The liberals are offering moral absolution. You are apparently allowed to backdate your opposition to the Iraq war if you oppose it now.

[Bill in AZ]

Glappuk, of course is Gallup when a cat isn't jumping around distracting the poster.

Now I have seen mountainlions under a tshirt that were pretty distracting... uh, prolly ought to put the wineglass down and stop right there...

[Jane]

Thanks Rich - that suits my purposes!

[Soylent Red]

Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives

This is a crucial point. A-Q is not so much an organization as it is the administrative and financial hub for terror activities. At the zenith of the recent unpleasantness in in Iraq, there were lots of A-Q affiliated groups, most of which didn't bear the name "al Qaeda".

That hasn't really been disseminated very well to the public, which makes the arguments of the willfully ignorant much easier to swallow.

And hence there are no howls of laughter and derision from the masses when a presidential candidate asserts, "There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush invaded."

[RichatUF]

Soylent Red-

That hasn't really been disseminated very well to the public, which makes the arguments of the willfully ignorant much easier to swallow.

I'd say that the Clinton doctrine of "strategic crime" and the law enforcement model of fighting terrorism, which developed during the Cold War and was codified by the Clinton Administration, is a big contributor to this type of thinking. The "strategic crime" model allows for 'nuanced' thinking regarding state and non state support and state and non state actors. Using the example provided of the linked study-Hussein used terror as an instrument of state policy by providing funding, training, and safe-haven (a market maker perhaps). Those groups which benefitted from Hussein's largess were, in part, carrying out Hussein's foreign policy as agents of a foreign power, not as some "loose affiliation of individuals." The 'nuance' part is that investigators look at the problems of terror as bringing a court case to convict a criminal, not as a national security threat to defeat our enemies. This also in part explains Powell's legalist presentation of the US's "Iraq Case" to the judge and jury of the UN and the IAEA.

[Rich Berger]

RichatUF-

Found that report today and plan to sit down and read it (thanks to PL). When I first heard about it all I could find was a bunch of lefty sites all singing from the same book, but no links to original source. They use a special kind of approximate logic out there - the grenade/horseshoe type.

[Tom Maguire]

Re:

1) thought the decision to go to war was the right one 2) think that the post-invasion work was botched (thank you mr bremer) 3) believe that we have an obligation there 4) think that if mccain wins in november we have a chance of winning the long fight

And

I still think taking Saddam out was a good idea.

1. Getting rid of Saddam was a great thing from a human rights perspective. Also, Iran would never relinquish their nuclear program while Saddam was their neighbor (although they won't anyway, apparently, but who knew?).

2. From where I sat, the decision to invade made sense. However, Bush should have known that

(a) the WMD case was light, and should not have been a primary focal point of the pre-war case. Yes, Bush did cite other things, but he should have emphasized those other things.

(b) the planning for the post-liberation occupation was a joke.

The missing WMDs probably would not even have mattered if the occupation had gone well, but having both go south together has made it very difficult to keep the public behind this war, which is an important part of Bush's job.

I agree that we need to win this and McCain gives us the best chance of doing so.

However, to be fair to Dems, some insist that their timetable strategy is a victory strategy, since it will push the Iraqi so step up. I think they are both wrong and (mostly) engaging in self-serving spin, but maybe some of them are sincere.

[boris]

(b) the planning for the post-liberation occupation was a joke.

Since my brother spent 2 tours there with the Army Corps of Engineers my POV would prefer the term "learning experience" over "joke".

[sbw]

(a) the WMD case was light, and should not have been a primary focal point of the pre-war case. Yes, Bush did cite other things, but he should have emphasized those other things.

He did. Before the United Nations General Assmbly. That is pretty public.

Well, except that everyone knows enough to ignore what happens at the UN.

[royf]

RE:

"(a) the WMD case was light, and should not have been a primary focal point of the pre-war case. Yes, Bush did cite other things, but he should have emphasized those other things."

As I remember it the Administration was told by Tenet it was a "Slam Dunk". Now if the Clinton Admin. cooked the books maybe that explains it but the fact is the intelligence said the WMDs were there.

I also have never seen any investigation into the numerous reports of the convoys going into Syria before the invasion. Why has that been ignored? The reports of Russian Special Forces working with Saddam to remove materials, what were they?

That brings to mind during the early stages of the war, A American unit working near the Syrian border intercepted a convoy of SUVs or light military trucks. American forces fired on the trucks for refusing to stop and killed what turned out to be Russian special force soldiers. Russia never officially protested and the incident was out of the news cycle the next day. What was that about?

As things have turned out you are correct the WMD angle was pushed too hard, but I have followed pretty closely and there are still many unanswered questions. Personally believing that Saddam didn't have WMDs is something I find impossible to accept. But the entire truth is far from being known, only the leaked reports and media sound bits are what is passing for conclusions now.

[sbw]

Then there is also all the unwavering, unyielding support that others gave Bush at the time.

What a piece of work is man!

[Rick Ballard]

(a) the WMD case was light, and should not have been a primary focal point of the pre-war case.

Let's try that with a few comparatives.

The WMD assessment was better or worse than:

a) Assessment of Chinese reaction to Korea in 1950.

b) Assessment of likelihood of success re Bay of Pigs invasion.

c) Assessment of probable aftermath to the assasination of Diem.

d) Assessment of the probable success of Rolling Thunder.

e) Assessment of the probable success of the Solidariety movement in Poland.

f) Assessment of the strategic, military and economic strength of the USSR in 1990.

g) Assessment of the probability that Saddam Hussein would invade Kuwait in 1990.

h) Assessment of the probability that Hussein would not annihilate Kurdish and Shia dissidents subsequent to GW I.

i) Current assessments of the "strength" of China (vide USSR).

Based upon the demonstrated talents exhibited by our chief "intelligence" agencies for over fifty years, why should the WMD case considered to be "light"? Given the interception of NK nuclear components destined for Libya after GW II, the destruction of a joint NK/Syrian project by the Israelis, well after Saddam had taken the short drop and given Iran's continuing development of enrichment capabilities, I find the use of "light" to be rather humorous. In the sense that Kennedy waiting until he had satellite photos of the missiles on the decks of Soviet transports before initiating the Cuban missile crisis "humorous". Now there's an example of "solid" intelligence. Maybe just a tad late, but solid nevertheless - about as good as a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, I suppose.

[clarice]

royf and Rick, exactly so.

And don't forget all western intel agencies and Egqypt, Syria,and Israel believed Saddam had WMDs.

Even our paltry reports after the invasion after a slow and goofy effort to track them down, showed that he had the means to rebuild his WMD programs almost the second we left..And had we not invaded, the UN Security Council (having fed the coffers of the evil ones with the corrupt OFF program until Iraq was almost dry) was ready to end all controls over Iraq, probably even jeopardizing the UK/US fly overs which was all that was containing him.

[takenaway]

This is only my POV but if memory serves, we were successful much quicker in prosecuting this war, much faster than anyone ever dreamed, it takes time to weigh all avenues for post war planning, time we did not really have,(truly take yourself back to that time frame)also I really thought I remembered a lot of talk about the U.S. being occupiers not liberators, so my opinion, given the shortness of time, they went with the scenario that a small U.S footprint was the way to go so as not to appear more like an OCCUPIER,remember liberal talking points, granted this did not work, however what I am saying is that, there was a plan and it could have been the correct plan, turns out it wasn't, it was instead, a learning experience and we did learn from it. As I said, this is my POV feel free to disagree but it's how I remember it.

[Soylent Red]

Those groups which benefitted from Hussein's largess were, in part, carrying out Hussein's foreign policy as agents of a foreign power, not as some "loose affiliation of individuals."

Yeah, I'd agree with that statement with the following caveat:

Hussein was using a unified ideology as a tool of foreign policy.

The organizational linkages between groups and members, and between groups and governments WRT A-Q and Hussein's Iraq was a lot looser than say Hezbollah/Iran.

But in view of the relationship of Hezbollah and Iran, I don't think it is far-fetched to believe that to be the relationship with A-Q franchisees that Saddam wanted.

"(a) the WMD case was light, and should not have been a primary focal point of the pre-war case. Yes, Bush did cite other things, but he should have emphasized those other things."

As I remember it the Administration was told by Tenet it was a "Slam Dunk". Now if the Clinton Admin. cooked the books maybe that explains it but the fact is the intelligence said the WMDs were there.

This is absolutely the case. Even reasonably high up CIA staffers have pointed out that Tenet "sold" "Curveball" to the Administration, in spite of the fact that his own people had serious doubts.

Curveball was, of course, crucial to the WMD argument. Whether the Administration should have requested corroboration is debatable, but there is some indication that Gen. Powell did ask to see the source documents produced by Curveball. My guess is that he was doing it for purposes of CYA, rather than because he seriously doubted Tenet.

Long story short: Dems are pissed that GWB acted decisively rather than dithered, as did WJC. The "failure" of intelligence was, in fact, a CIA management problem that was 20 years in the making, culminating with a sycophant Clinton appointee telling his boss what he thought the boss wanted to hear.

Again, how do you explain that to the masses?

[boris]

Also WMD was the leverage the administration had with UN resolutions where the technical issue was inspections and not stockpiles. So in fact one could claim that WMD stockpiles are a straw dummy when the UN justifications for invastion were based on WMD inspections.

[Soylent Red]

Even our paltry reports after the invasion after a slow and goofy effort to track them down, showed that he had the means to rebuild his WMD programs almost the second we left.

Oh, and what the Left doesn't tell you is that even now most of the world's intelligence agencies are pretty sure Saddam was:

a. working to rebuild his WMD production capacity

b. feeding disinformation into the system to make the Iranians believe he was farther along than he actually was.

So whether he actually had them is irrelevant when it comes to policy decisions. He demonstrably wanted to get them, and was letting on to everybody that he had them.

As Rick points out, the only "solid" intelligence is done by historians.

[sbw]

And, all it took was one UN inspector to determine that Saddam was not a willing partner as South Africa had been.

Now, it takes one UN inspector to determine Saddam's non-compliance, how many Democrats does it take to turn on a light bulb?

[sbw]

Oops!

***Now, IF it takes one UN...***

[Cecil Turner]

Typepad spam filter ate my post . . . but here was the interesting part (ref Saddam's AQ connection and the new document summary):

. . . the idea that we're able to know exactly what was going on in minute detail is simply wrong. This is sort of thing would be handled at the most hush-hush level of the intelligence service . . . and first on the list for evidence destruction. To my mind, what's most interesting about that report is what's not in it. For example, much of the supporting evidence is derived from out-stations' responses to regime directives, and references those directies in detail, like these:

[. . .] top secret letter of the Military Intelligence Command of 6 and the top secret letter of the Military Branch Command of Baghdad of Sept 2001 [. . .]
[and]
Presidency of the Republic's Secretary Top Secret and Immediate letter #474 of 1/29/1998.

Obviously the originals would carry more weight--and they must've been sent to several addressees--yet they aren't referenced at all. The logical conclusion is that the document destruction in the run-up to invasion was very thorough indeed.