TheMojoPin
03-27-2003, 06:30 PM
First off, I know this posting an entire article, but I think it might really help clear up a lot of arguments on both sides of the issue of the war in Iraq. It's well-written and includes several dozen sources and links. Jeff, if you want to go ahead and pull it, or delete the article, I'll go ahead and include the link at the bottom instead to take up less room...I just think it might help a lot of people out (Myself included) in sorting out a few of the major issues of the day.
[quote]Myths and misconceptions about Iraq
By Bryan Keefer, Ben Fritz and Brendan Nyhan
March 20, 2003
As war begins in Iraq, this column is intended to serve as a resource. It highlights major fallacies and disproven and highly debatable claims from the debate over US policy toward Iraq. Please note we can only deal with issues that have been conclusively or near-conclusively addressed on the public record. Claims about the future (what will happen in Iraq or the U.S.) or about motives (why President Bush, Congressional leaders and others are making the choices they are) are non-falsifiable in almost every case; they cannot be conclusively proven or disproven by available information. For this reason, we do not generally address these types of statements except in cases such as obviously absurd predictions or cheap soundbite-style attacks on motives. Similarly, we cannot take positions on factual disputes involving murky intelligence-related issues.
There are, however, a number of myths and misconceptions on both sides of this debate that can be fairly addressed. Below, we note and analyze some examples that we believe are important and clear-cut cases of deception, misrepresentation, and faulty logic.
Was Iraq connected to the September 11 attacks?
A debate continues to rage over whether and to what extent Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is connected to Al Qaeda. Experts disagree about the evidence of such a connection. However, several of the specific instances cited by US and British officials as evidence for such a link have apparently not held up to close scrutiny, though the matter remains unresolved.
It is clear, however, that there is no evidence of a supposed Iraqi connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks . Yet a significant percentage of the American public appears to believe, falsely, that Iraq or Iraqis were involved. In fact, none of the hijackers were Iraqi citizens, and even the most ardent backers of war with Iraq have not presented evidence that Saddam was involved in any way with the attacks or attackers themselves.
Polls have also repeatedly found that much of the public thinks Saddam contributed to the September 11 attacks. Forty-two percent of those surveyed in a February New York Times/CBS poll said they believed Saddam was "personally involved" in the September 11 attacks (down from the 51 percent who believed so this September 2002). A January Knight Ridder poll found that roughly one-fourth of the public believe that President Bush has released evidence showing that Iraq helped plan and fund the attacks. Yet no evidence has been presented by any source to suggest that Saddam had any involvement whatsoever with the September 11 hijackers.
Many also believe that some of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis. The January Knight Ridder poll found that just over half of those surveyed answered, incorrectly, that at least one of the hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, none of them were. Most are believed to have been Saudi citizens; Mohammed Atta, the alleged leader of the group, was Egyptian.
Did a 1998 IAEA report say Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon?
It is currently unknown whether Iraq has an ongoing nuclear program or what the extent of any such program might be. But many of the claims that have been made about Saddam's nuclear ambitions have been misleading or false.
First, as we have demonstrated, President Bush and his representatives repeatedly dissembled last year with regard to Iraq's nuclear capabilities. On Sept. 7, 2002, Bush said, "I would remind y
[quote]Myths and misconceptions about Iraq
By Bryan Keefer, Ben Fritz and Brendan Nyhan
March 20, 2003
As war begins in Iraq, this column is intended to serve as a resource. It highlights major fallacies and disproven and highly debatable claims from the debate over US policy toward Iraq. Please note we can only deal with issues that have been conclusively or near-conclusively addressed on the public record. Claims about the future (what will happen in Iraq or the U.S.) or about motives (why President Bush, Congressional leaders and others are making the choices they are) are non-falsifiable in almost every case; they cannot be conclusively proven or disproven by available information. For this reason, we do not generally address these types of statements except in cases such as obviously absurd predictions or cheap soundbite-style attacks on motives. Similarly, we cannot take positions on factual disputes involving murky intelligence-related issues.
There are, however, a number of myths and misconceptions on both sides of this debate that can be fairly addressed. Below, we note and analyze some examples that we believe are important and clear-cut cases of deception, misrepresentation, and faulty logic.
Was Iraq connected to the September 11 attacks?
A debate continues to rage over whether and to what extent Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is connected to Al Qaeda. Experts disagree about the evidence of such a connection. However, several of the specific instances cited by US and British officials as evidence for such a link have apparently not held up to close scrutiny, though the matter remains unresolved.
It is clear, however, that there is no evidence of a supposed Iraqi connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks . Yet a significant percentage of the American public appears to believe, falsely, that Iraq or Iraqis were involved. In fact, none of the hijackers were Iraqi citizens, and even the most ardent backers of war with Iraq have not presented evidence that Saddam was involved in any way with the attacks or attackers themselves.
Polls have also repeatedly found that much of the public thinks Saddam contributed to the September 11 attacks. Forty-two percent of those surveyed in a February New York Times/CBS poll said they believed Saddam was "personally involved" in the September 11 attacks (down from the 51 percent who believed so this September 2002). A January Knight Ridder poll found that roughly one-fourth of the public believe that President Bush has released evidence showing that Iraq helped plan and fund the attacks. Yet no evidence has been presented by any source to suggest that Saddam had any involvement whatsoever with the September 11 hijackers.
Many also believe that some of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis. The January Knight Ridder poll found that just over half of those surveyed answered, incorrectly, that at least one of the hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, none of them were. Most are believed to have been Saudi citizens; Mohammed Atta, the alleged leader of the group, was Egyptian.
Did a 1998 IAEA report say Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon?
It is currently unknown whether Iraq has an ongoing nuclear program or what the extent of any such program might be. But many of the claims that have been made about Saddam's nuclear ambitions have been misleading or false.
First, as we have demonstrated, President Bush and his representatives repeatedly dissembled last year with regard to Iraq's nuclear capabilities. On Sept. 7, 2002, Bush said, "I would remind y