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."
There is highly controversial evidence that Iraq had a role in 9/11. For example, there is the infamous alleged meeting in Prague between an Al Queda operative and Mohammed Atta. There is also alleged Iraqi involvement in one of the major organizational meetings for 9/11. I believe there is strong evidence to support those propositions, but it is correct that they have not been proven; there are just too many gaps. Nonetheless, to say that it's known that there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11 is certainly overstating the case; there's evidence to the contrary, even if it is not proof. So the correct stance is not to say that there is no link, or that there is a link, but that we simply don't know based on the evidence we presently have. If you go deep enough into the 9/11 report, that is in fact what it says: There is no proof of Iraqi involvement. Doesn't mean there's no involvement, just no proof.
The writer of the Duelfer report pleads, in the first few pages, for us to read the whole thing, and understand what he's saying in context. It seems rather churlish for us to ignore that part of the report and simply say there were no WMDs. The report tells us to dig deeper and understand what was really going on, and I feel we should instead of leaping to the glib conclusion that Kerry is right and we did go on a wild goose chase of a war.
After all, there is no question at all that Saddam has a long record of supporting terrorism, including Palastinian suicide bombers. He also was known to harbor terrorists. And if you dig deep into the Duelfer report, you will see that there is no question that Saddam was starting to suceed in getting sanctions lifted, and if they were, he was planning to restart his WMD programs.
There is good news in Iraq, and most of it is ignored by our press. Iraq has a free press. It has a new government with excellent support from the people. Its new police and military are starting to vigourously attack the Al Queda members in the country. The economy is booming. By a narrow majority, Iraqis support the presence of our troops until the new military gets up to speed.
Al Queda and factions of the old Iraqi government are attacking Iraqis and our soldiers. The image of the rebels has been badly damaged by their actions, including the infamous beheadings. Even in Fallujah, the natives are getting restless and opposition to the Al Queda foreigners is strong.
I'm not saying things are perfect in Iraq, and I'm not buying my plane ticket over there until Americans are no longer serious targets. But life's getting better for the man on the street, and although we have made plenty of mistakes, it's nothing like the horrors under Saddam.
In the end, I support President Bush not because he's always right - of course he's not - but because he is steadfast and resolute when confronting our enemies. John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat, and I think that's the wrong kind of leader for us during these difficult times.
D
The questions are not clear, the 'right' answers are ambiguous, some 'right answers' are actually wrong, and conclusions drawn are subjective nonsense.
A majority of people in the world do not support Bush's reelection. If that simple fact is 'ambiguous' or 'wrong' to you then there is a problem with your perception of reality.