Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests

[hnumpah]

We best not go down that lying about WMD hole again, then

True, might upset them what are still in denial. Besides, Bush, Cheney and Condi, et al, got the war they wanted. And for them in denial, we might still find them WMD yet. 

[Amianthus]

True, might upset them what are still in denial. Besides, Bush, Cheney and Condi, et al, got the war they wanted. And for them in denial, we might still find them WMD yet. 

"By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

[sirs]

D'oh       

[Xavier_Onassis]

Most of what is on the Fox Cable News channel is not news, it is mostly commentaters, essentially entertainers like Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and so forth. PBS and NPR run about 55 minutes of news, usually one or two in depth stories, plus an update of current stories. Fox and CNN run 22 minutes plus 8  minutes of ads, then repeats the broadcast again. NPR runs shows like Diane Rehm, who summarizes the story and often invites callers to comment, generally including people on all sides of the issue.

A person who knows he is uninformed will be less adamant about his opinion than someone who has been given false "facts".

[BSB]

Actually I like O'Reilly. He's pretty upfront about the fact that he's in the opinion  business, "Ideological media", and that he got into it for the money. If I ever watch Faux News, which I rarely do, I watch O'Reilly.

MSNBC is, yes, just as bad as Faux News with The Rachel Maddow Show, etc. I do watch Morning Joe though. Excellent show.

NPR is good stuff. Some of it reminds me of old time radio. I fell asleep as a kid listening to The Lone Ranger, the Shadow, The Thin Man, all that stuff.

BSB

[Christians4LessGvt]

WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward,
U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists
in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction

Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)

[kimba1]

Most of my news is online and npr. Nothing from tv. I simply don't watch tv anymore since the internet came around.

[BSB]

Former Sec. of State Rice said that even had she known then what she knows now about the lack of WMD in Iraq she still would have supported the invasion.

Saddam Hussein, Rice said, was the most brutal dictator in the Middle East, and had the Arab Spring prompted the Iraqis to attempt an overthrow of Hussein's regime the governmental response would have been viscous beyond what we're seeing in Syria.

As much as I respect Ms. Rice's intellect, my reaction to that is, who cares? It's the judicious use of our troops against terrorist organizations that threaten the United States that concerns me. Iraq was not a threat. Iraq was a colossal waste of blood and treasure and has set our military preparedness, and capability, back 10 years.

BSB

[sirs]

Naaa.....that 'd be the current gutting of our defense budget

[Xavier_Onassis]

Rice says she would have still supported the invasion even knowing that Saddam had no WMD's. Of course she would say that, otherwise she would have to admit to causing the death, maiming and exile and uprooting of hundreds of thousands of people.

I don't think she would have been given a chance.

If 9-11 had not happened and there was no evidence of WMD's, there would have been only a very small amount of support for the invasion, just as there is very little support for attacking Pakistan or Iran now.

It was a mistake.

Stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia was a huge mistake. Not making sure that they had no Arabic Bibles to pass out there was an even BIGGER mistake. It is always a mistake to allow US troops or diplomats to serve as missionaries for any religion.

[hnumpah]

As much as I respect Ms. Rice's intellect, my reaction to that is, who cares? It's the judicious use of our troops against terrorist organizations that threaten the United States that concerns me. Iraq was not a threat. Iraq was a colossal waste of blood and treasure and has set our military preparedness, and capability, back 10 years.

BSB

My thoughts exactly.

Stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia was a huge mistake. Not making sure that they had no Arabic Bibles to pass out there was an even BIGGER mistake. It is always a mistake to allow US troops or diplomats to serve as missionaries for any religion.

Stationing troops there was not the problem, it was analagous to stationing troops in Germany and Korea during the Cold War. It provided the troops an opportunity to train in terrain and climates they might have to fight in, and kept a ready force close at hand if needed.

Proselytizing, or allowing it, was stupid, especially in a host country with strict laws against it and against our SOFA (status of forces agreement) we made with that country to allow our troops in.

Our SOFA with Turkey when I was there in 75-76 prohibited any outdoor display of the American flag, even as a patch on our uniforms, and any outdoor formation. On the Bicentennial, July 4 1976, in order to have any ceremony commemorating Independence Day, we had to have it indoors.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Stationing non-Muslim troops in an overt fashion was clearly offensive to many Saudis. I agree that in the modern world this is rather primitive, but the Koran states "There shall not be two religions in Arabia", and that means that everyone in Arabia (defined by all Saudis as Saudi Arabia in particular) must be a practicing Muslim. Again, Saudis are XIV Century fanatics, but we know this to be true.

Proselytizing made this much, much worse.

The religious police in Saudi Arabia tend to be fundamentalist fanatics. Our State Department knows this. Our military certainly should have known it as well. Arabic Bibles should have been confiscated from the people trying to smuggle them in.

People died as a result of this foolishness, and not one soul found Jesus as a result.

[hnumpah]

Stationing non-Muslim troops in an overt fashion was clearly offensive to many Saudis. I agree that in the modern world this is rather primitive, but the Koran states "There shall not be two religions in Arabia", and that means that everyone in Arabia (defined by all Saudis as Saudi Arabia in particular) must be a practicing Muslim.

That is not quite true. Other religions are allowed to be practiced, as long as they are not overt, and do not make any attempt to proselytize the Muslim population. We were allowed to practice Christianity - well, those who did - as long as they kept it in their homes and did not hold public services or gatherings. Bibles were not even confiscated at the airport on the way in country. Many of the non-Saudi workers - and there were millions of them - were Christian.

[Plane]

   Before the invasion of Iraq, was the probability of WMD existance or use the only justifacation given?

[Xavier_Onassis]

 Before the invasion of Iraq, was the probability of WMD existance or use the only justifacation given?

=======================
It was at least 90% of the reasons given. The other was "He gassed his own people!", which happened a decade or more before.