It also proves how stupid and lazy the public is.

this is why democracy and foreign policy are not compatible.

I'd like to see questions added to these kinds of polls that ask respondents whether they consider themselves to have above-average intelligence, or to be more informed than the average American. So many problems in democratic government seem to arise when people who are not informed think that they are.

I think a better explanation of this phenomenon is not a lack of intelligence on the part of the general public, nor the fear of war and terrorism influencing us to put too much faith in government, but rather the explanation put forth by public choice economists: the public is not informed about political issues - especially foreign policy - precisely because it has no reason to be. How does my knowledge of foreign affairs and foreign policy affect my day-to-day life? It doesn't. It may be a hobby of mine, or my job, and I may therefore know more than the average person, but for everyone else, it is little more than trivia fodder for game shows.

Because of this, I don't criticize people for not knowing "important" details in politics and foreign policy, not do I even criticize politicians for taking advantage of this fact; after all, politicians have their own personal interests just like everyone else and act to pursue those interests by any means necessary.

The only people I criticize are those who ignore this effect and continue to believe that government can be a great tool for social engineering, if only the "right" people were in charge and if only the public was "properly" educated.

A number of people also believe that the whole moon shot was done on a sound stage and that we never actually went to the moon.

What of it. Some people are stupid, and others are not.

The bias of the liberal media at work!

I am one of those who believe, among other things, that (1) Iraq possessed WMDs in large and increasing quantity; (2) that some have been found; (3) that more exist and will be found, to the embarrassment of honest critics, and the shameles backpedalling and spin of the rest; (4) that Iraq has used WMDs-- though for various reasons, including "shock and awe", not during OIF; and (5) that the links between Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al and the former Iraqi regime were financial, material, and real. You may take this opportunity to ridicule me as a sheep, or take another look at the existing evidence, or take into account the historical probability of more truth coming to light. Your choice; make it and live with it.

BAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAA

I think Iraq had chemical weapons and bio capabilities. The trailers are modest evidence of the latter (they were for blowing up balloons? Come on!)Iraq has a history of using them. We know what a sincere disarmament program looks like (South Africa and one of the 'stans, I think the Uzbeks). It's not the way Sadaam acted. I think it is possible he, or his underlings destroyed them. I fear it's possible they've been moved.

Had the Bush administration been lying (as opposed to merely wrong) we would have already found the American planted WMD's such a strategy would have required!

BAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Radley, you report this poll without asking some obvious questions. Iraq has used chemical weapons against Kurds within its own borders, and against Iran. Did the poll make fine distinctions between what happened recently and what happened a long time ago? I doubt it.

Also, whether or not Iraq possessed inventories of toxins at the time of the U.S. invasion, it certainly possessed weapon systems for WMD dissemination and protective gear for its own forces.

Since there is so much ambiguity in these matters, your uncritical attitude leaves the identity of the sheep open to question.

I always find it interesting that if the majority of the public agrees with some person on an issue, it's "The Will of the People", but when they disagree, they're sheep.

So, The UN, All of Europe, and Bill Clinton knew that Iraq had WMD's before bush came along. What happend to them? Didnt several of the accusing dems (lately) sign a letter to clinton in 98 imploring him to do something about Iraq's WMD's?

Didnt Saddam himself gas the kurds? and the Iranians?

I suppose Saddam never existed because we havent found him yet either.

BTW, it took several years to find weapons in the Balkans, in South Africa.... But a few months is enough for Iraq.

Give me a Break.

Please guys this is the attitude of public who always believed this about american politicians. Why Iraq or saddam? US is the only country to use so called WMDs and now it is deciding who can have to and who cannot and on the other hand they are developing all these weapons without hinderance. What a hypocracy. This is high time for americans to come out and speak against there leaders to stop this madness.

Saddam can hide 25 tons of toxins and WMDs which could be launched in 45 minutes and they where never found. This is a ridiculous argument.

Come on americans should be the first one to get rid of there own WMDs and then preach the world about disarmament. So much about dignity and truth.

Give me a break. When the whole of the admin cries now only to the American people but to the whole world that Iraq is chock full of WMD and we know exactly where it is, the admin deserves to look like a bunch of clowns. It's called personal and public responsibility, not that a neo-con would know what that meant.

Ask Reagan and all the left-overs from that regime what their response was when Saddam gassed the kurds. I'll give you a hint, Reagan sent him a letter saying 1) bad Saddam 2)your next shipments of arms are already on the way, 3) do you have enough of our intelligence agents over there? and 4) are our top-secret satellite pictures of Iranian troop movements helping you friend?