Study shows most Bush supporters under important misconceptions.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by Nash


1) if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning.
             
2) if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

So, when someone reacts negatively to a, "Bush is Hitler" comment......

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger


"It concluded Saddam had dismantled all of his WMD programs shortly after the 1991 Gulf War and had never tried to reconstitute them."

That's not even close to what the report said.  This article is slanted from the start but I decided to humor myself and take it with a grain of salt.

Withen weeks to months Sadam had the ability to revamp his pre 1991 program to moderate production reaching full production in a little over a year.

"Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol2_nuclear-02.htm


I'll agree with you on  biological weapons,

"Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_bw_key-findings.htm

but there is no indication in the report that he could have done so with chemical weapons.



And according to the report, they can't prove that Iraq had any chemical weapons program.

"Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm


And  as far as bilogical weapons programs.

"ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_bw_key-findings.htm


Yet most republicans think these programs existed when the US invade Iraq,


"Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq."

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Qnnaire10_21_04.pdf


even though there is no evidence for it, and in some cases evidence against it.

He also had 500 tons of raw uranium...after enrichment (wich he had the capablity to do after the world turned a blind eye) could produce an estimated 142 bombs.

"Post-1991, Iraq had neither rebuilt any capability to convert uranium ore into a form suitable for enrich-ment nor reestablished other chemical processes related to handling fi ssile material for a weapons program."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol2_nuclear-02.htm


 

Several missle programs were found to be in violation of 1441 mainly because HE LAUNCHED THEM AT KUWAIT DURING THE INVASION.

What does this have to do with the University of Maryland study?

Based on my statments above wich are based on facts

Well, perhaps not.


Thank you for being on topic and attacking the arguement.