Was there a lot of opposition to the Iraq war in the American media pre invasion?

[MMAisGod]

It wasn't universal, though.

Someone else posted this:

https://www.politifact.com/iraq-war-polls/

Consistent with the idea that on the right, there was near-total support, and on the left, there was majority opposition but more division. That adds up to a majority overall, but it certainly wasn't universal.

Not "universal", but I didn't mean it that literal either. I posted a link earlier with that Jesus guy, that Bush had 72% to 80% support during the peak of the Iraq War push. 80% is 4 out of 5 people. That's as close as you're going to get, and it was literally because he was attacking the "bad guys" all Patriotic. It only dropped afterwards, but I'm not talking about after support dropped, I'm talking about during its peak when it was the cool thing to be pro-war.

 

[Blunderbuss]

CNN was neutral and not the communist leftists news network that it has become after AOL time Warner bought/merged CNN from Ted Turner and eventually wrested control away from him

RIP WCW

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not "universal", but I didn't mean it that literal either. I posted a link earlier with that Jesus guy, that Bush had 72% to 80% support during the peak of the Iraq War push. 80% is 4 out of 5 people. That's as close as you're going to get, and it was literally because he was attacking the "bad guys" all Patriotic. It only dropped afterwards, but I'm not talking about after support dropped, I'm talking about during its peak when it was the cool thing to be pro-war.

From the link:

LA Times
“Suppose President George W.Bush decides to order U.S. troops into a ground attack against Iraqi forces. Would you support or oppose that decision?”
Jan. 30- Feb. 2, 2003
Support: 57%
Oppose: 38%
Don’t Know: 5%

CNN/ USA Today/ Gallup
"Which comes closer to your view: the United States should invade Iraq with ground troops in the next few weeks unless Saddam Hussein shows convincing evidence that Iraq is disarming its weapons of mass destruction, or the United States should support the United Nations in sending more inspectors and allowing them all the time they need to determine whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?"
Feb. 7-9, 2003
Invade in next few weeks: 52%
Send more inspectors: 45%
No opinion: 3%

Time/CNN
"Do you think the U.S. should or should not use military action involving ground troops to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?"
Feb. 19-20, 2003
Should: 54%
Should Not: 38%
Not Sure: 8%

ABC News & Washington Post
"The Bush Administration says it will move soon to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, by war if necessary, working with countries that are willing to assist, even without the support of the United Nations. Overall, do you support or oppose this policy?"
Feb. 26 - Mar. 2, 2003
Support: 59%
Oppose: 37%
Not Sure: 4%

ABC News
“Would you favor or oppose having the U.S. military take actions against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power?”
Mar 5- 9, 2003
Favor: 65%
Oppose: 30%
No Opinion: 5%

Newsweek
"In the fight against terrorism, the Bush Administration has talked about using military force against Saddam Hussein and his military in Iraq. Would you support using military force against Iraq, or not?"
Mar. 13- 14, 2003
Would Support: 70%
Would Not: 24%
Don’t Know: 6%

Etc. Clear majority, but I wouldn't call it overwhelming, and the split was along ideological and partisan lines. IMO, that gets revised away because people want to absolve the GOP, given that it's much more widely criticized today. Similar with the media (Fox was openly cheerleading for it, while the real media was giving it more fair coverage, but it just gets painted with a broad brush as all of the media being like Fox). And the authorization vote is also misrepresented.

 

[MMAisGod]

From the link:



Etc. Clear majority, but I wouldn't call it overwhelming, and the split was along ideological and partisan lines. IMO, that gets revised away because people want to absolve the GOP, given that it's much more widely criticized today. Similar with the media (Fox was openly cheerleading for it, while the real media was giving it more fair coverage, but it just gets painted with a broad brush as all of the media being like Fox). And the authorization vote is also misrepresented.

Everyone else followed FOX's lead. That's how it was back then. Also from your link-

ABC News/ Washington Post
“Would you support or oppose the United States going to war with Iraq?”
Mar. 17, 2003
Support: 71 %
Oppose: 27 %
No Opinion: 3 %

ABC News/ Washington Post
“As you may know, the United States went to war with Iraq last night. Do you support or oppose the United States having gone to war with Iraq?”
Mar. 20, 2003
Support: 72%
Oppose: 26%
No Opinion: 2%

CBS
"Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"
Mar. 26-27, 2003
Approve: 77%
Disapprove: 19%
Don’t Know: 4%

LA Times
"Do you support or oppose the Bush Administration's decision to take military action against Iraq at this time?"
Apr. 2-3, 2003
Support: 77%
Oppose: 21%
Don’t Know: 2%

Fox News
"Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein?"
Apr. 8-9, 2003
Support: 81%
Oppose: 16%
Unsure: 3%

ABC News/ Washington Post
“Do you support or oppose the United States having gone to war with Iraq?”
April 16, 2003
Support: 78%
Oppose: 20%
Unsure: 2%

Lots of 16% and 19% types of oppose and high 70s to 80% supports in there in that time frame. Can't pretend it didn't exist. I'm sure you don't think the LA Times, ABC, or CBS is fake news right?

Even sites with a reputation of being "highly progressive" or whatever were all about that war and Patriotism when it was the cool thing to do. For example-

MSNBC copied many features of Fox News, adding conservative commentators, a US flag on screen, and a special section called "America's Bravest" where viewers could send pictures of their loved ones serving in the armed forces in Iraq.

The star CNN war correspondent of the 1991 Gulf War, Peter Arnett, who was again in Baghdad, this time for National Geographic and MSNBC, was sacked after appearing on Iraqi television.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2959833.stm

America's Bravest. #NeverForget

 

[Jack V Savage]

Everyone else followed FOX's lead. That's how it was back then. Also from your link-

Lots of 16% and 19% types of oppose and high 70s to 80% supports in there in that time frame. Can't pretend it didn't exist. I'm sure you don't think the LA Times, ABC, or CBS is fake news right?

Even sites with a reputation of being "highly progressive" or whatever were all about that war and Patriotism when it was the cool thing to do. For example-

I think you're mixing up two eras. Before the war, there was a lot of skepticism, almost exclusively on the left, but majority support. After it started, some of the people who were initially skeptical supported it, and it was seen as being in bad taste or like being mean to the troops to oppose the action. Stronger support in that era. The next period came later, when most people agreed it didn't go well.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Where is this list from? I thought Canada were not a part of the coalition and did not support the invasion?

Clandestine deployment of Canadian forces[edit]

• 
  Canada – According to the U.S. State Department, a total of 15 countries participated covertly.[116] According to classified U.S. documents released by WikiLeaks, despite the Canadian government's official position that they would not participate in the invasion, Canadian officials allegedly promised to clandestinely support it.[117] In addition to naval vessels and personnel already in the region,[117] Canadian officers, Major Generals Walter Natynczyk, Peter Devlin, and Nicholas Matern, served as Deputy Commanding Generals of Multi-National Corps – Iraq.[118][119] and Canadian pilots flew Boeing C-17s into Iraq to "season" the flight crews.[120] In 2003, Prime Minister Chrétien admitted that some Canadian troops could be serving alongside U.S. and British troops in Iraq. "It's possible," he said, "but they are not in combat roles." Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum refused to give Parliament details about the locations of Canadian soldiers in Iraq.

 

[MMAisGod]

I think you're mixing up two eras. Before the war, there was a lot of skepticism, almost exclusively on the left, but majority support. After it started, some of the people who were initially skeptical supported it, and it was seen as being in bad taste or like being mean to the troops to oppose the action. Stronger support in that era. The next period came later, when most people agreed it didn't go well.

It really was just an evolution of the same timeframe. Opinions changing don't mean that opinions didn't exist prior to the change. Some people tried to pretend they were always anti-war from beginning to end, tried to at least for those who weren't paying attention or had short term memory. The "seen as being in bad taste or like being mean to the troops to oppose the action" you stated is exactly what I have been saying the whole thread lol. You couldn't do it when it was all Patriotic without being villainized by the current culture/climate/people of the time. Most people from every day Joe to mass media conglomerate were fully supporting the war, with those "19% oppose" and "20% oppose" from your polls being actually a representation of that time. 1 out of 5 opposing sounds exactly what I remember.

As far as outlets, if even MSNBC of all outlets supported the war when it was cool to do so, and put up right-wing propaganda like America's Bravest, or the firing of reporters for reporting in Iraq (among too many other things to list), that's when you know it was heavily endorsed. Once the "war is awesome revenge bro/look at these ratings" fad died down, support dropped massively. Yea, a lot of people did agree it didn't go well, afterwards, and then changed their position to "this war is terrible, I hate it so much, etc". But. Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It really was just an evolution of the same timeframe. Opinions changing don't mean that opinions didn't exist prior to the change. Some people tried to pretend they were always anti-war from beginning to end, tried to at least for those who weren't paying attention or had short term memory. The "seen as being in bad taste or like being mean to the troops to oppose the action" you stated is exactly what I have been saying the whole thread lol.

Right, but I'm saying that was after it already started. Before the war, there was a lot more skepticism. It was temporarily buried, and then it came back.

As far as outlets, if even MSNBC of all outlets supported the war when it was cool to do so, and put up right-wing propaganda like America's Bravest, or the firing of reporters for reporting in Iraq (among too many other things to list), that's when you know it was heavily endorsed. Once the "war is awesome revenge bro/look at these ratings" fad died down, support dropped massively. Yea, a lot of people did agree it didn't go well, afterwards, and then changed their position to "this war is terrible, I hate it so much, etc". But. Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

I think MSNBC was still finding its niche at the time. Actually, I don't think I even had it where I lived, and I don't remember hearing much about it. Fox really dominated at the time. Overall tenor of what we call mainstream news was more even.

 

[pinger]

One big problem is that when we have concluded that the WMD narrative was bullshit (main selling point for Iraq war), then it would be sane to really question the source and foundation of that intelligence. It lead to a war and countless deaths after all.

Who's fault was the shitty, shady intelligence? CIA? Who.

The CIA was providing sound intelligence, that was the problem. It was not enough to justify the "pre emptive war".

That's why people with outside interests started an active disinformation war via a secondary source of invented "intelligence".

The purpose was to muddy the waters and create enough doubt so that the worst case was assumed.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

I've fallen for several propaganda campaigns...this was one of them.

regrettably I fell for:

1) They violated so many UN Resolutions!!!
2) Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people!! (this is partially true, but there is a lot more nuance to this claim)
3) Saddam has invaded his neighbors before!!!
4) Saddam might get an WMD!!!


all ridiculous and stupid arguments.

that’s because you’re an easy target. A gullible mark. You fall for the exact same things now.

 

[HydraCap3]

I've fallen for several propaganda campaigns...this was one of them.

regrettably I fell for:

1) They violated so many UN Resolutions!!!
2) Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people!! (this is partially true, but there is a lot more nuance to this claim)
3) Saddam has invaded his neighbors before!!!
4) Saddam might get an WMD!!!


all ridiculous and stupid arguments.

You're wrong, but okay

 

[SleepyBoy]

Not really, it was a pretty flimsy resistance

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

You're wrong, but okay

what am I wrong about?

 

[HydraCap3]

what am I wrong about?

Iraq did all of those things. Like, literally, all of them. It takes minimal research.

 

[Orgasmo]

In war, truth is the first casualty. At the time, Murican media was leading its public to believe Iraq was about to use WMD. With the exception of a few groups, most were universally pro-war.

 

[blaseblah]

That's interesting. It's crazy how short most of the public's memory is.

I see a lot of parallels between how the media was pumping up the "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" hysteria in 2003 and the COVID hysteria in 2020. If you were against the war you could be shamed for hating freedom and not supporting the troops. If you think the hysteria over COVID is not warranted and don't want to wear a mask your shamed for "being selfish and not caring about others".

The mainstream media can't seem to make up their minds whether they value human life or not or how important freedom is.
In 2003 it was "We should send thousands of our young people to go fight and die in a pointless war in the name of freedom!"
In 2020 it's "We will crash our economy and take away freedoms with lock downs to stop the spread of the virus and save old people".

The military industrial complex and big oil stood to gain financially from Iraq in 2003. Big pharma vaccine makers stand to gain a lot because of the virus in 2020.
I think the COVID is an overblown hoax but I recognize I'm not the smartest guy around and I could be wrong, but it's still crazy to me that people that just blindly trust the media and government narrative even when they've lied before.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice......

Asking people to wear a mask and be careful is quite different than invading a country under false pretenses.

 

[12ga.]

Saddest part is we learned nothing. Libya went down without much resistance (and caused Europe a massive refugee crises that continues to this day) We believe the lies about Syria/Assad and so on. It's so easy to manipulate Americans. Kinda scary in a Demagogues hands if he has media support...


I am very skeptical of authority nowadays. That doesnt mean I follow the cranks like Alex Jones or anything but I need proof of everything they say.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Iraq did all of those things. Like, literally, all of them. It takes minimal research.

I'm not saying Iraq DIDN'T do these...what I am saying is there was a great deal more nuance to all of these claims.

1) He did violate UN Resolutions, but paled in comparison to how many Israel violated. and prior to the 2nd invasion he was allowing full inspections of his weapon facilities.

2) Saddam Hussien used chemical weapons on a Kurdish rebel force that were atttempting usurp him. (not cool, and very abhorrent) but it wasn't like he was killing these people for fun

3) Saddam did invade Iran, with our full financial backing and endorsement. his invasion of Kuwait, different story.

he didn't have WMDs btw.

 

[MixMartialFarts]

Asking people to wear a mask and be careful is quite different than invading a country under false pretenses.

The governments of the world are crashing their own economies, putting themselves billions of dollars into debt, and taking away peoples freedoms. I'd say their doing a little more then just asking people to wear a mask.

 

[helltoupee]

almost no opposition, look at the list of nations that went along with it, evidently there was little to no opposition anywhere


1 Iraq Aggressor
2 Kuwait Affected Party
3 United States Coalition Leader
4 Afghanistan Coalition Forces
5 Argentina Coalition Forces
6 Australia Coalition Forces
7 Bahrain Coalition Forces
8 Bangladesh Coalition Forces
9 Belgium Coalition Forces
10 Canada Coalition Forces
11 Czechoslovakia Coalition Forces
12 Denmark Coalition Forces
13 Egypt Coalition Forces
14 France Coalition Forces
15 Germany Coalition Forces
16 Greece Coalition Forces
17 Honduras Coalition Forces
18 Hungary Coalition Forces
19 Italy Coalition Forces
20 Morocco Coalition Forces
21 Netherlands Coalition Forces
22 New Zealand Coalition Forces
23 Niger Coalition Forces
24 Norway Coalition Forces
25 Oman Coalition Forces
26 Pakistan Coalition Forces
27 Philippines Coalition Forces
28 Poland Coalition Forces
29 Qatar Coalition Forces
30 Saudi Arabia Coalition Forces
31 Senegal Coalition Forces
32 South Korea Coalition Forces
33 Spain Coalition Forces
34 Sweden Coalition Forces
35 Syria Coalition Forces
36 United Arab Emirates Coalition Forces
37 United Kingdom Coalition Forces
38 Germany Financial Support
39 Japan Financial Support

Yep. Such a noble cause that a whole bunch of lapdogs jumped in. After all, it was all just an innocent mistake.

There were plenty of dissenters. They were called ant-American and treasonous for not supporting the country during a 'war'.

And the funny thing about all of this is that most all of the Conservatives and Trumptards on these forums, who now do everything they can to distance themselves from that shitshow, acting as if they were always against invading Iraq, I g-u-a-r-a-n-t-e-e would've been part of the flock that were making daily calls to nuke the entire Middle East, and calling for their fellow, more level headed countrymen to face a firing squad for treason.

Even funnier, the Trumper portion of the pro-Iraq crew now carry themselves as if they have always been anti-establishment, and cannot trust a single government official who doesn't have a last name of Trump. As if they are punk rock or something for literally worshipping a reality TV conman who was born rich, looks down his nose at everyone else, and for all intents and purposes is of questionable intelligence. He wouldn't piss on his followers if they were on fire. And they love it.