Slashdot Mirror
Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities
corngrower writes "A report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland correlates voters' perceptions of world attitudes and events with their choice in candidates. It's an interesting read, and shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq."
Seriously, after reading it, I was quite happy that someone put out some evidence for what I've observed. If I had a dollar for every time I tried to tell someone that Iraq really didnt have nukes....
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
According to the survey, based on the views of Bush supporters or at least what they believe Bush believes in, it seems like most of them should really be Kerry supporters.
The notion that liberals and conservatives perceive the world differently seems fairly obvious. The rest just seems like flamebait.
Seriously, given either political viewpoint, I'm sure I can find plenty of facts and "world attitudes" that would give strong support to that position. If the President announced that the facts on Iraq agree with his points and that polls show that a worldwide majority agree with him, would you accept his word? If not, why should the reverse be true?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Sounds reasonable to me. As this nytimes piece goes in considerable detail in,
most of Bush's politics/decisions are about faith and not fact. Anybody who votes for him has
to share his worldview.
And that's what we're talking about. You still insist that Iraq was the story, despite the complete lack of evidence.
There were other countries in the world much more deserving of our attentions. Afghanistan, for example, should have about 200,000 more troops in it than it currently does. North Korea needs invading. Iran needs invading. Saudi Arabia needs invading.
You want perpetual war? I'm right with you. You have this liberal's support, if only you pick the right targets.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
In saying that lack of proof that there's no Al Queda-Iraq link, means there might be one, you're using the same crazed logic that got us into the war in the first place. Just because Saddam couldn't prove that the weapons hadn't been destoyed, didn't mean they weren't destroyed.
God told me that you can't prove a negative. Now prove he didn't.
Some facts support one conclusion, some facts support a different conclusion. Everyone, including reporters, politicians, bloggers, you, and I, picks and chooses the facts he wants to believe, often to support a predetermined conclusion.
If you say you pick and choose facts to support your beliefs, then there's a pretty good chance that you're not qualified to judge your own self awareness. (That comment, by the way, is a filter that I will overlay over any facts that you present that contradict my assertion.)
Just because two sets of facts can support two different conclusions doesn't mean either set of facts wrong. It means the world is a hell of a lot more complex than a couple of bullet points on a web page.
Is an unsupported allegation justification for going to war? Would you condemn an individual to death over an unsupported allegation? What about an entire army of humans?
There's no proof that you or I were involved in the 9/11 attacks. That doesn't mean that we were not involed, it just means that there was no proof. Blindly assuming that we have involvement without a shred of real evidence would not only be a meaningless thing to say, but it would also be a reckless assumption. If there is no proof, there is no proof and we should just accept that. If an investigation uncovers some solid evidence, sobeit...but until then, we can't justify war based on a useless suspicion based on the idea that two enemies MUST have colluded. That theory just doesn't make any sense.
Interesting that you should say this, I recently heard an interview with a Canadian journalist who was released after a long and frightening kidnapping in Iraq. He said that the American-paid Iraqi police were supporting the insurgents. (Clearly, this can't be the case with all of the Iraqi police, but these new cops don't sound like all they're cracked up to be). This is just part of the rosy picture that the Bush administration paints of our occupation. The intel that told us to go to Iraq is now telling us that the best case scenario is a status quo in the insurgency, and the worst case is a full civil war. A civil war means another Vietnam, or the possibility of pulling out and accepting an Islamic dictatorship. Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why we supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the 70's and 80's? To stop the Islamic dictatorship in Iran? Didn't we topple the Taliban for similar reasons (Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorship sponsoring terrorism)? Is there a chance that we could have mitigated the threat that Saddam posed without a war? I'm not suggesting that they were nice guys and I'm not suggesting that there weren't any atrocities going on there, but this war is not about liberation or Saddam's atrocities against his people.
I have a few issues with this. Is steadfast and resolute a good thing when you're just wrong? The fact that this president does not seem to have the capability to analyze a situation and realize that it's not working...or come up with a plan B -- just in case (for example) his cabinet was wrong and they won't throw roses at our soldier's feet. He seems unable to plan for reality. When reality happens, he spins it into good news -- like everyhting is peachy in Iraq (except for the hard work that our soldiers have to do). Reality happened and our reasons for going into Iraq magically changed from WMD to terror. When they failed to provide a link, it changed to liberating the Iraqi people. When people disagreed with his reasons for going to war, Bush spun it into suggesting the naysayers they were pro-Saddam. His only admitted failure in Iraq was winning too fast. This does not seem like a critical thinker. This seems like a stubborn man, who people are willing to stand behind because they're afraid of not doing enough. I call this "dosomethingism". A paranoia where people want
-Turkey
This is the same line of thinking they highlight in the article. "Somebody who agrees with me can't be wrong!" I'm sure it is totally IMPOSSIBLE that a judge could award money to plaintiffs without it implying IRREFUTABLY that there was a connection! Are we too make policy decisions based on what judges do after the fact? Maybe instead of assuming we should actually, maybe, ask the judge why he did or what evidence he did it on? Policy should be based on facts, not non-causally related actions by others.
"why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?"
As far as the IED:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.
Consult the link on all the myriad details about how to tell whether it was a "dud" or not.
But the question remains...this is your evidence? One lousy old shell of questionable utility constitutes weapons of mass destruction (note that both the words "weapons" and "mass" imply plurality)? We went to war for one fucking shell?! Is this the evidence you think the liberals are trying to "spin" away? Again here goes your reasoning: because of my assumptions, the premises must be true! Could it be possible that the presence of this IED shell would not imply irrefutably that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? No, impossible...it's a scrap of evidence that could possibly indicate that, so therefore it MUST indicate that. What if they had, oh, a thimble full of sarin? Is that WMD? What if they had some mustard plants...that's obviously WMD right?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
You provided an editorial piece by a member of Bush's administration and an article from the Republican mouthpiece Newsmax. Do you have anything that's unbiased. Maybe something that uses facts?
The peice is heavily biased, and if you can't see that, you're not living in this reality. It goes to lengths to be fair and scientific in gathering the facts about the beliefs of the Bush and Kerry backers, but then just "assumes" with no evidence shown that the worldview of the Kerry side is correct, and the worldview of the Bush side is incorrect. If it were that simple, it wouldn't be such a big deal. There are a lot of very intelligent people both here and abroad, who have a firm understanding of and a lot of experience with geopolitical issues, who believe that Bush is holding a more "correct" worldview than Kerry is.
11*43+456^2
This is the same faith that sees no problem with overthrowing governments, and bringing people like Saddam Hussein into power, when it's convinient.
The same faith that sees no problem with using a 500 pound "precision bomb" to take out a single person by dropping it into an apartment building. Then being surpised, but unworried when "collateral damange" happens, and 15 others are killed.
The same faith that supplies Weapons of Mass Destruction to our temporary allies. Faith that doesn't flinch when they get used.
The same faith that supports a man who lied to justify an invasion, while having no plan for the aftermath of that invasion.
The same faith in a leader who has made the world less safe, and made the US weaker.
oh... I wish I had your faith, then I'd be able to sleep at night, instead of worrying about death from a Korean or Iranian, or loose Russian nuke.
oh... to have the faith and naivety of a 4 year old again...
John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat
So what do you base that statement on? Do you base it on the time when, as his force travelled up the Dong Chung River, "all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less that fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lt. Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. This daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers."? Or shortly after than, when "the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area" and "with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy."? That's from his Silver Star citation, which adds, "The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission." No, wait. That would totally go against your statement. Hmm.
Maybe you base the statement on the time when, after being wounded in the arm by an exploding mine, and while "receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the riverbanks" he realized that a man had gone overboard. In response, he turned his boat around and "returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, and with disregard for his personal safety he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged boat to safety." That's from his Bronze Star citation, which ends with "Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism, and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." Oh, crap. That also totally contradicts your statement.
What do you base your statements on, anyway? Seriously, have you ever come across evidence of this that was not in the form of an absurd claim made by the Bush campaign? Just because Bush says John Kerry is weak and indecisive doesn't make it true. As Karl Rove always says, "Attack your opponent's strength, not his weakness.". So no wonder they want to paint Kerry this way: they know the opposite is true, and that it is one of this strengths. And in succeeding in convincing the public otherwise, they have greatly hurt his chances of being elected.
And please don't cite SBVT because we all know they're full of shit. (And again, right in line with Rove's strategy. And their funding came from Rove's good buddy Bob Perry. Hrm.)
And I'm really sorry to use Vietnam war references in my argument, because I really think this race has focused way too much on things that happened 30 years ago when they should have been focusing on today's issues. But, obviously, the above quotes are the ideal counter-argument to your ridiculous claim. He's been resolute and such in the senate too, but hearing about how he boldly broke with his party to support a balanced budget just doesn't have the same effect.
> I think it's funny that we can capture scientists known to their fellows as "Dr. Germ" and "Chemical Ali" and somehow the "correct" story is that there not only were no WMDs in Iraq, but that they were never pursuing them to begin with.
The Bush Administration's greatest accomplishment has been convincing people like you that Iraq was an imminent threat to due to stuff they did back when they were our buddies.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade