Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated
by mcguire on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @04:00PM
(#28856909)
Some popular support?
"Days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Maines told a London audience the band did not endorse the war and were "ashamed" of US President George W. Bush being from Texas. The remarks triggered boycotts in the US and backlash from fans." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicks)
Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated
by whatshisface on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @04:02PM
(#28856939)
That's overlooking the order of events - first the decision was made to invade Iraq, then the WMD claim was invented, then the public was convinced of the claim, and then Iraq was invaded. If you only consider the last two steps, then it would look like the second to last event was first. Sadly, public demand was a consequence, not a cause.
Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated
by goatlover on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @04:36PM
(#28857349)
I don't know whether it was actually invented or was the result of poor intelligence and the Bush administration wanting it to be true. At any rate, the public largely bought into it at the time.
I seem to recall it being fairly popular among the public back when it was proposed and first carried out, because there was a pretty widespread belief that Saddam did still have WMDs, and that he was somehow linked to 9/11. Those were both wrong, and there were certainly people who were skeptical, but it did have somewhat popular support at the time.