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.
In other news, 93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
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.
This reminded me of another report done by the same group regarding misperceptions people had based upon their source of news, most notibly Fox News:
2 _03_Press.pdf
"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."
Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml
The original source document (PDF):
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_0
While these reports should not be correlated without further study, its rather indicative of how the public is misinformed by certain parts of the media; though I will admit that it does swing both ways for both liberals and conservatives, but Fox takes it to another level when it comes to TV news.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
...in each of these alternate realities, there's a politician who's considered to be correct. =)
More in tune with facts, too. But the Kerry supporters didn't do very well, either, which is scary.
Which reality was the article written in? We can't trust the results because it could be the wrong one!
Stewart: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?
Corddry: That's right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.
Even if all the Bush supporter understood the rest of the world position on things, I wouldn't change their support for Bush. The point being in their (and my) mind that whatever the rest of the world wants us to do is probably not in our best interest. Multi-lateral whining is the obvious position of weaker nations. I for one am glad that we have a president who isn't swayed by international opinion. If that makes the US a bully so be it. Better a bully than the geek with a bloody nose.
Having a difficult time with the assumption that these people are unbiased.
/. liberals lean hard left.
http://www.pipa.org/about.html
Incidentally, this is a public opinion research website. Once again "michael" and the
Don't fall over folks.
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
I find it amusing that the survey was conducted at all, as if the opinions of the "vast majority" of the people in the world are either relevant or legitimately discernable.
If we're going to assert, as does this survey by implication, that the opinions of other people matter, then anyone with a nose ring, an alternative lifestyle, or membership in a 3rd party had better straighten out - because the "vast majority" of people probably don't approve.
Better that the survey should ask whether the respondents believe that the war was legal, or supported by factual information, than whether someone in some other place likes it.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Yeah, I remember this one. It turns out, they were wrong on a lot of the questions and the Fox news watchers were right. I can't seem to find the questions and the "correct" answers at the moment... they seem to have cleverly hidden them.
Here's the one that sticks out like a sore thumb: "48% incorrectly believe that evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda have been found, [and] 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq."
If there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why did a federal judge (appointed by Clinton) award $100,000,000 to plaintiffs payable by Saddam?
If there is no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?
Anyway, it's just a liberal hit piece against conservatives, trying to pass it off as research. They label truth as "misperception".
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
If the fake neoliberals actually had the tollerance they claim to have, they'd admit that it's a possibility that Bush supporters are actually LIVING IN A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE where Iraq had WMDs and shipped them all out to Syria before the war started.
After all, we each live in our own little world where we are always correct, right?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I did a journal entry on this topic yesterday. Please see also the updated page from my sig.
I am a strong supporter of Bush, and I realize these things:
Now I'm waiting for some liberal to come refute my facts, lol. Seriously though guys: It's like people who link to that worldvoting site... it's 75%/25% in favor of kerry in the US. That shows a bias. I tend to think the same with this site -- I know that in my experience, the people who favor Kerry get their facts from Fareignheit 9-11 and the liberal news media. Do some independent research people.
Jay | http://oldos.org
Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Is it any surprise that the vast majority of people are uninformed and have a view of reality based on ideology rather than fact? NO!
Does this make one bit of difference when trying to decide who to vote for? NO!
Do you vote for Bush because some ignorant guy off the street was given cigarettes to vote for Kerry? Do you vote for Kerry because some gun nut has a Bush bumper sticker? You shouldn't.
This "research" into popular ignorance is what political science has sunk to. "Ignorant Bush supporters more ignorant than ignorant Kerry supporters." What does this contribute to political discussion? NOTHING. It's the best a group of professors and grad students who don't have one original idea of their own to contribute can do.
Do you honestly believe that every single one of Kerry's supporters is voracious news hound and super-informed political junkie, or do you think it's possible that their chosen ideology happens to jive with the facts this week? If we found WMD in Iraq tomorrow, I'm sure 50% of people polled, blinded by ideology, would still get it wrong. Then we could claim that Kerry supporters are vastly more ignorant than Bush. This proves NOTHING.
This is propaganda. Read what intelligent and informed people on both sides have to say, and then make a decision. Don't fall for this crap disguised as research.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Isn't the truth the truth?
"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."
No, it shows that Kerry supporters are more in tune with the attitudes of the group doing the study, and with you. To what extent Iraq had a WMD program is still up for debate, it's clear he had intent, but not so clear exactly what he was acomplishing. I'm sure if I looked I could find a lot of conservative sources that would say the oposite, ie, "Bush supporters more in events and world attitudes surrounding war in Iraq." We all are seeing the same evidence, the same events, but with different world views its pretty obvious there are going to be differences in our perseptions.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
Okay people, quiz time. How many of you can guess the world view of corngrower, the submitter of this article? To give you a hint, here's his a paraphrase of his submission.
"A study on the perceptual fantasy worlds that voters live in demonstrates that Kerry voters' fantasy worlds are more real than the Bush voters' fantasy worlds!"
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
If there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why did a federal judge (appointed by Clinton) award $100,000,000 to plaintiffs payable by Saddam?
Because he was wrong. Name dropping Clinton proves nothing.
If there is no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?
Not when it's so old as to be completly non functional. Which it was.
They label truth as "misperception".
Or perhaps you label your misperceptions as truth.
The reality is that though 20/20 hindsight can provide a clear future direction, it cannot erase the fact that many people in both parties and around the world made many mutual and consensual decisions based on the same intelligence.
A major defining difference between the two parties is that one is standing behind its decisions while the other is trying to dismiss its responsibility in its involvement in those decisions.
Whether the original decision was right or wrong is really not the issue--everyone agreed to it, and it is in the past. The real issue is how each party plans on addressing its responsibility for the future.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq.
Measuring being "in tune with the events" implies that there is an objective way to decide WHICH EVENTS are "the" events. There is not and suggesting otherwise is a bunch of crap. Give me a break. This was a study that measured people's correlation with the study makers views.
As a study in propaganda, I love the use of the term "world attitudes". I wasn't aware that planets had minds that were capable of forming attitudes. Who exactly defines what the "world attitude" is? It's awfully presumptious, to define any particular attitude as the "world attitude". There is also an implicit value judgement that the "world attitude", whatever this means, is the correct one, or is one that you should be "in tune with". The US couldn't possibly be in the right if it ignores the "world attitude" could it?
Kerry supporters love to conclude that because we know NOW that Iraq had no WMD's in hand that Bush "made incorrect judgments before the war" (quoting the study). That does not follow -- based on the information available AT THE TIME, he assessed the risk and was unwilling to gamble on the "No WMD" option. Kerry supported the authorization of force, so he too agreed the risk was unacceptable. Only Kerry now wants it both ways because we have better information. The only reason we got that better information was because we removed Saddam and put in 1500 inspectors for a year.
You cannot be intellectually honest and retroactively change your assessment of risk. Bush took the only course of action that guaranteed we would know Iraq would not provide WMD to terrorists.
If Kerry were in a situation where the risk was 50% that a rouge regime had WMD and the risk was 50% they would cooperate with Al Qaeda, what would Kerry do if France and Germany didn't agree? I'm not willing to risk giving the presidency to someone who wants for foreign powers to lead when uncertainty and risk are in play.
Isn't the truth the truth?
You must not follow politics much.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
voters who choose Bush are wackos. Voters who choose Kerry and less so.
> shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq
Sure Kerry supporters can be in tune with the rest of world opinion. They probably are.
But, I really don't think world opinion has come to the point where the world realizes that if Islamic fascism isn't defeated then everyone will be living under a "Talibanesque" (spelling?) regime real quick.
Already, the people of Spain have allowed Islamic fascists to decide a major election in their country.
When will the world realize the pretext these fascists live by?
When will the world realize that the only solution that will be tolerated by Islamic facists is the death of every person of Jewish, Christian, Hindu, atheist, and/or any other religious bent other than islam?
This ultimately means that the world cannot see where these evil doers want to take the world's societies.
The Islamic terrorists do not hesitate to murder anyone in their way. And if they die achieving their goals then they are perfectly happy with that also.
I say that if they want to die for Islam then let them. But let them die at the end of my gun on my terms.
Rather than me being beheaded because I refuse to allow my wife to be forced to wear a head covering, or if I refuse to pray to their skewed excuse for a god, or because I refuse whatever other religious atrocity they desire to impose upon me.
It's wrong to couch supporters of Kerry in terms of what the remainder of the world thinks.
Kerry, Bush, Nader, Badnarik, name your candidate, etc., everyone must realize that if you aren't an Islamic facist then the facists have a fate you don't want waiting for you. By sticking your head in a hole and refusing to see the obvious you are failing your species badly.
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
I follow too much for my own good ;-).
The "multiple realities" of today's party politics is, frankly, more frightening to me than Saddam Hussein ever was.
I really believe the support for George Bush is almost religious in nature. In his latest speech, the unquestioning cheers from the audience were almost frightening. They sounded like "amens". You're not supposed to hear that kind of blind allegiance in America, you're supposed to have support but skepticism.
And of course the same is true for Kerry, in a different way. I believe the only reason he has any support is because he's Not George Bush.
When you turn on a talk show, it's just small sound bites repeated over and over again like mantras. I wish some of the interviewers would just cut the human-tape-player off and say "We've heard these talking points before. Don't you have anything new to say?". But if they did that, there'd be no way to fill up 24 hours of cable news.
It just makes me want to shake my head and hope for the future. Where are we headed??
Did you actually read the article?
Your post isn't really fact so much as assertions. That's OK! They might really be correct assertions -- I'm not saying they're wrong, because that's a separate debate! -- but they are debatable. What do NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN "want us" to believe? How do you quantify "not as bad"? What defines a "HORRIBLE" economic situation? Where do you draw the line between "depressed" and "HORRIBLE"? They're all subjective terms.
Let me emphasize before you flame me: I'm not saying your assertions are wrong, just that they're debatable.
If you somebody disagreed with you about Bush inheriting a "horrible" economy, what would you do? You'd pull up some economic data. You know, facts to back up your assertion.
This study, in addition to asking many subjective questions, asked some questions that were about specific, well-defined, falsifiable facts that are not really debatable. For example:
They asked what the conclusions of the Duelfer report were. Now you can argue about whether that report was wrong (that's an assertion), but you can't really argue about what it said. Duelfer said that there was no major weapons program. Maybe the report was wrong, but that was indeed what it said.
They asked what sort of evidence of a Saddam-Qaeda relationship the US had found. Again, you can argue that we should read between the lines, and presume less or more of a relationship than the evidence suggests -- but it's not really debatable what evidence has been presented to the public by intelligence agencies.
It is even on the factual information that Bush supporters seemed to get it wrong. Maybe you're better informed than most! So stay better informed, and read the article.
Assuming you're accurate in your identification, "Neither" seems likely. Casual research suggests he leans to Nader. The Kerry Supporter Worldview seems likely to be closer to his than the Bush, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it. Your quote, however, can most readily be construed to be supporting evidence for my suggestion:
"A study on the perceptual fantasy worlds that voters live in demonstrates that Kerry voters' fantasy worlds are more real than the Bush voters' fantasy worlds!"
IE, he thinks both the big name candidates of full of it, and supporters of either are deluded.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Huh?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
There is no 'you people'. There is however different people with different stories.
My story is that George Bush gets us involved in more things than he has the capacity/willingness to do properly, and doesn't use the big guns enough.
Case in point, Fallujah. He should have told the people there that they have 24 hours to get out, and they will be paid for damages, and then carpet bombed the whole area, mosque included.
I'll second that "HUH?" and toss a "WTF are you gibbering about" on top.
no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein.. you know except maybe that he LIVED there in those sweet palaces and all.. lol
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?
I suspect the real figure of merit here isn't how many facts you select, in order to retain your belief.
It's rather how many facts you have to throw out, in order to retain your belief.
Best is being able to accept new facts, and change your belief, when warranted. (Oops, I guess that isn't "resolute.")
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Southmc said "Especially considering the data was taken from internet polls. /me shivers."
not, " Especially considering the data was done by Knowledge Networks."
Here's the one that sticks out like a sore thumb: "48% incorrectly believe that evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda have been found, [and] 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq."
In fact, the study authors have their facts wrong. The 9/11 commission concluded ONLY that Iraq and Al Qaeda did not cooperate with regard to the 9/11 attacks. The commission DID CONCLUDE that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda in direct contradiction to the assertions of the makers of this study. Source: usa today. The primary link is so well known that it is getting rediculous to assert it doesn't exist: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Also, there were quantities of Sarin gas that were discovered in artillery shells. While this is not WMD on the scale predicted, it is enough to refute the absolutist position taken by this study that no WMD have been found in Iraq. Source: newsmax.
the fact that over 70% of Kerry voters think the US economy is worse than a year ago (wha?!) is partisan too,
Depends on what you think the economy is- the fake dog and pony show called the stock market, or the jobs market adjusted for population increase. The first is better, the second is worse- and the general trend is for the first to continue getting better, and the second to get worse until we're in a depression.
30% think that Bush said Iraq was involved in 9-11
Did you listen to the 2002 State of the Union Address? He said SEVERAL TIMES that Iraq supported al Qaida in their attack on the United States- and was ready to provide a NUKE to al Qaida and that the smoking gun proof would be a "mushroom cloud in Manhattan".
What are you Bush people smoking?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If a murderous rapist serial killer is banging down your front door, immediately threatening you, and you've got the gun to take care of him are you going to be very appreciative of the fact that you next door neighbors are "against such behavior".
Except your example means nothing because there was no immediate threat.
Of coarse if Sadam had missiles in Cuba or Mexico pointed at us there would be no debate about the war. But he was just a failed despot in a failed state.
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?
Has Bush banned stem cell research? No
Did Saddam Hussein receive significant amounts of weaponry from the US?
Gimme some harder ones!
I don't know appropriate google searches for the above answers. Someone please post some.
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
Has Bush banned stem cell research? No
Did Saddam Hussein receive significant amounts of weaponry from the US? Yes
Gimme some harder ones!
I don't know appropriate google searches for the above answers. Someone please post some.
NPR is keen to point out that it is only the federal funding of embrionic stem cell research on new lines that is banned.
I can't remember how many times I have had to tell ignorant 'liberal media' types about all of the stories on NPR.
listen to these
On the "Did Saddam Hussein recieve significant amounts of weaponry form the US?" question. I don't recall NPR ever telling me that he did, you got evidance to the contrary?
Remember not all liberals listen to NPR, and not all NPR listeners (though probably most) are liberal.
I am convinced that you can't actually listen to NPR and call it 'liberal media' unless you are such a rabid conservative that you think mentioning both sides is a liberal idea. Most people who bitch about NPR being too liberal, don't even know what is on NPR.
I will not comment on the NYT as I only occasionally read an article online...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Maybe it's time to bring those back:
Did Iraq have WMDs? (yes) (no)
Did the 9/11 Commission Report indicate a connection between Bin Laden and Iraq? (yes) (no)
How many US soldiers have died in Iraq? (less than 100) (100-1000) (over 1000)
Who do you want for President? (Bush) (Kerry) (Other)
like the study that claimed Fox News viewers were delusional, this one will turn out to count as "in touch with reality" people who say "Saddam had no connection with terrorism" and count people who say "WMD were the sole justification for the Iraq War" as "in touch with reality."
Get a fucking grip, folks. Republicans aren't cretins, and Democrats aren't nuts, and these sorts of studies invariably turn out to demonstrate that the person doing the study is Better, Faster, Stronger, and Prettier than the Dread Other People.
And the linked PIPA story is unbiased? Oh comeon.
The main problem with the PIPA story was that it used as "facts" things that while evidence shows PIPA correct, they could be wrong.
Personally I've always wanted to see a study of historical and political facts that can't be argued (Maybe get the DNC to submit 10 questions they think bush supporters wouldn't know, maybe things about the civil rights movement for example or policies that the democratic party support, and get the RNC to submit 10 questions on their side, and get historians to submit 10 neutral questions) Poll people to find out their knowlege and then ask them what canidates they support.
Graph this on an questions/right vs who they are going to vote for axis.
Results would be very interesting.
Surveys have shown that people who agree with me are 22.6% more intelligent than those who do not! They are also found to be more attractive and live longer.
Film at 11!
I am hardly surprised so many people cite "How many people in the world don't like the US so we need a new president" when voicing their support for Kerry. But on Slashdot, "News for Nerds"?
When did popularity and others opinions matter so much?
The truth of the matter is the world is not high school or some college Greek letter society. US popularity is only important to the insecure and those who hated the US to begin with. That will never change.
I would rather look out for the US and tell the rest of the world to mind its own business. Finally, for my fellow Americans who "hate what we have become" you are more than welcome to move elsewhere and follow the rest of the world around like a little lost dog, wagging your tail and begging to be pet.
I better clarify my response lest I be accused of "spinning": I assume when you said "link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein", you really meant "link between *Al-Quaida* and Saddam Hussein" and not some sort of mental slip there.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's especially infuriating if you consider that Donald Rumsfeld probably sold these WMDs to Saddam Hussein personally in the early eighties. The US were Saddams best friend when he used his WMDs (compliments of Ronnie Reagan) on his own population in the early eighties and Donald Rumsfeld and other supporters of the neocon movement were involved much more than they would like to admit right now.
Jilles
So I can continue to be a rich, ignorant, happy winner. And the rest of you can be poor, intelligent, miserable losers.
Fuck you, I like this side.
I withdraw my statement.
Somebody needs to mod you up.
I heard about this on NPR today, but they (of course) did not go to this level of detail.
thank you!
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I was incorrect. Kinda sad thought that I got modded up so quickly and highly. Kind of exposes Slashdot biases...
Of course my Republican employer, having been pointed to this report, insisted that whoever they had reading the WMD report was illiterate because it clearly shows that Iraq had WMDs and major WMD programs. With a shit-eating grin on my face, I calmly said "I think you just proved this report's conclusions."
...and that's the problem with this study. As pointed out above, I could come up with a score of questions that ask Kerry supporters about "facts" that are undeniably true, and then ignore them when they start to explain why they disagree with the "facts" or think that the question itself is loaded.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact. Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question. I mean - he said it, right? It's an undeniable fact. How can you live in a fantasy world where you think he didn't say that?
I see both sides doing this. Frankly, this doesn't bother me. It's part of politics - where candidates don't neccesarily argue about the facts themselves as much as they argue about the interpretation of those facts. If you want to convince people of your world view, you try to present the most persuasive argument you can; and often times, that means not discussing the facts themselves, but why your interpretation of the facts is different from your opponent's interpretation.
That said: I was once a registered Democrat; I'm now a registered Republican, and I doubt that I'll ever go back to the Democratic ticket. Why? While I was a Democrat, I never had a Republican call me stupid. I never saw conservative think tanks come out with a study showing that my political affiliation implied that I was disconnected from reality. I never had a member of the "other party" refer to me as if I were less than human because my opinions differed from theirs.
I wish the converse were true; but it's not. As a known conservative, particularly in this election season, I have been on the receiving end of enough hatred, bigotry, and invective directed at me to last a lifetime. Most of it has come from strangers who know nothing about me other than that I'm a registered Republican, which makes me an instant candidate for their own personal two-minute hate. The only "fact" that matters to them is my party affiliation, which they apparently believes gives them the right to be abusive, insulting, and treat me as if I were some sort of sub-human.
So... even if I were convinced that Kerry was a better candidate than Bush, I would be voting against him, purely becuase of his association with such an arrogant, hateful, spiteful, and all-around viscious politcal party.
Mind you, not all Democrats subscribe to this philosophy - thank God for that. So long as that's true, there's still some hope for the party. However, the party in general - and the leadership in particular - has gotten progressively more hateful and viscious over the last 20 years. For me, at least, they have finally reached the point where their actions speak so loudly that I cannot hear what they say. Their "facts", opinions, and interpretations are useless to me, becuase before I can even enter into a debate about their validity, I have to at least implicitly agree to their negative characterization of me - because unless I do, they are unwilling to consider my "ignorant" and "uninformed" point of view.
Until the actions of the Democratic party leadership and the rank and file show me that they've lost their penchant for assuming their own inherent superiority, relying on hate speech and ad homenin attacks rather than rational argument... well, I'm going to be ignoring them.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
What i find really amazing is how many people who identify themselves as Bush supporters don't know what his positions are.
The results from the survey, broken out by question.
Just in case you don't feel like rtfa, a couple examples:
53% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the International Criminal Court. We do not participate in the ICC and Bush does not think we should.
51% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the Kyoto agreement. We do not participate in the Kyoto agreement and Bush does not think we should.
20% of Bush supporters think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and 19% of Bush supporters think that Bush is telling them that.
But hey, the Republicans aren't the only uninformed people out there: 31% of Kerry supporters (36% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the Kyoto agreement and 34% of them think that Bush supports it.
39% of Kerry supporters (45% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the ICC and 45% of them think that Bush supports it.
What we can learn from this: one-third to one-half of the people out there don't know what the fuck they're talking about regardless of party affiliation, but Bush supporters are wrong slightly more often.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
s/events and world attitudes/my preferred reality/;
Liberty uber alles.
Voters supporting Kerry might be "more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq" but few recognize that Kerry is pro-war, Kerry voted to confirm Scalia, Kerry's health care plan won't cover everyone, and Kerry has not announced a plan on exactly what he'll give European countries to woo them to put more soldiers into this war. Kerry won't even call Bush a liar. The anti-war movement risks gutting its legitimacy by giving their vote to support someone who will plow billions more into this war and then asking him to please stop the war after they've given away their only bargaining chip.
This, of course, assumes that Kerry actually wants to win and isn't just playing the "good cop" to Bush's "bad cop" where both major parties are looking to drive more profits into their largely corporate campaign funders. Gore/Lieberman failed to convince on this ground after not acting to challenge those thousands of largely Black and Latino voters in Florida who were "scrubbed" from the rolls without good cause (most of whom would have voted Democrat, and most of whom still don't have their voting rights restored according to Greg Palast).
Digital Citizen
Duelfer said that there was no major weapons program.
...
You might want to actually look at what he wrote rather than a NY Times report on what he wrote.
From Charles Duelfer's testimony on his report:
The ISG has developed new information regarding Iraq's dual-use facilities and ongoing research suitable for a capability to produce biological or chemical agents on short notice. Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.
Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons.
From the article:
... Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons. ... It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development.
57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program.
From the Duelfer report:
Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.
You don't understand the new definition of bias.
Anything you agree with isn't biased. Everything that disagrees with you is biased.
It's liberals who fight for REAL freedom. Republicans are nothing but a bunch of greedy businessman and gun-nuts.
Such a study is easy to spin based on the questions you ask and it looks like it was in this case. A bunch of misconceptions almost exclusive to the conservative side of the spectrum were used and not surprisingly the conservatives did poorly on the test. It would be just as easy to use misconceptions that might be more common on the liberal side (some questions relating to the draft or Bush "knowing" about 9/11 before hand). Even in this one-sided exercise the "right" answer may be just as much a matter of faith without real knowledge of the facts as the "wrong" answer.
I put the scare quotes there because in some cases the truth of falsity of the answer is open to interpretation. For instance from the PIPA press release "48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found". It is PIPA that is mistaken here: the 9/11 commission report mentions several links but said that they do not appear to have resulted in a "collaborative relationship" An informed person aware of these findings would probably get a question about "links" wrong.
Furthermore this aspect of the 9/11 report is brief and as the Washington Post pointed out it "it did not specifically address two of the other pieces of evidence the administration has offered to link Iraq to al Qaeda: Zarqawi's Tawhid organization and the Ansar al-Islam group."
On another link the 9/11 report said there was "substantial uncertainty" about AL QUEADA'S ties to the first Trade Center which Iraq does have a pretty irrefutable link to Iraq in the person of Abdul Rahman Yasin... An informed person might find the 9/11 commissions "uncertainty" puzzling on account of the close operational and family relationship between Ramzi Yousef (the mastermind of the WTC bombing who hired Yasin to build the bomb) and Yousef's UNCLE(!) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed which the 9/11 Commission called the "principle architect of the 9/11 attack". Might a well informed person aware of the connection between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed of Al Queada -> his nephew Ramzi Yousef -> Yousef's bomb builder Yasin -> Yasin's finding shelter and a government pension in Iraq get this question "wrong"? Would a less well informed person get it "right"? I suspect the answer is yes in both cases.
What planet are you from? Where I grew up, Democrats were lucky to be called "stupid." Usually what we get were vulgar sexual epithets.
No party is without its assholes.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact. Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question.
Did you read the questionnaire the test subjects were given? Here, I'll copy and paste an example for you:That seems fairly phrased to me, not deliberately taking a fragment out of context. What do you think the correct answer would be? Or how do you think the question is slanted?
L-O-F-L
You say people are spinning the facts, then you point to a website that was *obviously* set up *TO SPIN* the facts and hell even make them up. Inflamatory domain name. Front page, poll numbers. Prima facie stuff.
My friend, you are one of those living in a fantasy world.
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...
In their own words (editing to cut unrelated material):
Yes, the ACLU defends freedoms - but only the ones that they think are important. So does the NRA, for that matter, but I don't hear them claim otherwise.
Reproductive choice? Since when did deciding if you want to have children or not become liberal?
The word "choice", in the context of "reproduction", almost always refers to abortion. Do you think those "Right To Choose" bumper stickers refer to a woman's right to take birth control pills? Almost noone is anti-contraceptive, but "choice" rarely refers to that. Abortion rights are pretty much the sole province of liberals. Conservatives tend to be against abortion.
Planned Parenthood? Not Liberal. %98 of their work involves women's health, STD prevention and education, and reproductive education.
I suspect that 98% is a bit high. At any rate, much of the rest goes toward performing abortions or lobbying for the right to do so.
Feminism? When did sexual equality become a "liberal" agenda item. I thought it was an ammendment to the constitution.
Most conservatives (all that I personally know, anyway) believe in equality between the sexes. To many conservatives, feminism goes beyond "women are equal" and into "women are inherently superior". To them, this is as blatantly wrong as the idea that men are inherently superior. No, sexual equality is not an amendment, although an attempt to make it so failed in the late 70s / early 80s.
So... I guess your saying conservatism means giving up your rights and freedoms, losing control over your reproductive organs, and keeping females locked barefoot and pregant in the kitchen?
That is an utterly bizarre take on conservative beliefs. If many non-conservatives share your misunderstanding, then I fear we'll never be able to work together.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
...doesn't mean I don't understand.
It's not that the right leaning are unaware. It's just that they don't give a rats ass who the rest of the world think they should vote for.
Someone hates these cans.
...I'm vet and I went to nam.
Hey, those geeks deserved what they got.
They told me they didn't like me.
The US ROCKS!
My bollocks ROCK!
.... Rome fell on a monday.
There were other countries in the world much more deserving of our attentions.
That has little to do with which one should be taken down first. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt determined that Germany was our greatest threat despite the fact that Japan actually attacked us and we prosecuted that global war by taking down Italy first. The greatest threat is not necessarily the best first target.
What you say is true, but irrelevant. FDR did not invade Brazil. He picked Germany because it was an agressive nation, which was more dangerous to the US at the time.
Iraq on the other hand was well constrained by the sanctions, the no-fly zones, and the inspections. That's what the reports said then, and that's what they eventually found after the invasion.
By the criteria that you imply in your message, we should have taken down Saudi Arabia and Iran first. But Saudi Arabia has been resisting full cooperation with us, and Iran is more belligerent than ever. They're actively pursuing nukes!
Do you truly understand that Iraq was a contained problem? Do you know that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists?
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Heh... you know, there have been some EXCELLENT replies to my post. It did what it was intended to do -- generate discussion. But I simply think it is UNFAIR that my post is modded "Overrated". You know what? Slashdot thinks that posts should only be modded down if they are "Offtopic", "Troll", or "Flamebait". My post was none of the above, and it really pisses me off that I'm penalized for the political views of the majority of /. readership.
Thank God I have karma to burn.
Jay | http://oldos.org
The media says NOTHING about the good news that's happening in Iraq.
. draft/),
They completely IGNORE that the elections in Afghanistan went well, and that women actually got to vote over there.
You know, for a party of people with so much "compassion" for other human beings, I think it's disgusting that their blind hatred of anyone that doesn't goose-step in line with their thinking needs to be taken out.
Freeing people from dictators is just one example.
Blocking Nader from a ballot is another.
Spreading lies about a new military draft coming, which by the way was being pushed by Charles Rangel, A DEMOCRAT (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel
is yet another.
Lie after lie after lie.
And don't give me any crap about Bush lies about this or that (because that's all it is, crap!)
Clean up your own playpen before you start bitching about the other side.... and guess what, because you can't. Whatever delusional ideas you have about Bush, Kerry and the Democraps are ten times worse.
It absolutely amazes me that the Kerry campaign is not using this to promote their candidate. Kerry has all but conceded major ground to Bush by not explaining that it is Bush who is the far more palatable candidate for terrorists, because it is the Bush Administration which has done more than any previous U.S. Administration to encourage and facilitate the spread of international terrorism. And the terrorists know it.
On a lighter note, here's another Bush endorsement that we might want to be concerned with.
Once again Israel denies wrongdoing, or faced with incontrovertible evidence (in this case one of the spies has reportedly cooperated with the FBI) dismisses the spying with the claim that such spying is harmless, because Israel and the United States are such good friends.
Well, let us take a closer look at that idea of "harmless espionage" by recalling Israel's most famous failed spy, Jonathan Pollard.
Jonathan Pollard is an American of Jewish descent, born in Galveston Texas, who established a career as an intelligence analyst for the US Navy. There have been many theories offered as to why Pollard decided to betray his country of birth to the Jewish state, but that Pollard did betray his country of birth to Israel is beyond all doubt. Pollard's defense was that he did not spy so much against the United States, only that he spied for Israel, sending them documents that in his opinion the US should have shared with Israel anyway.
That it was never Pollards job to decide what documents Israel should have was apparently irrelevant. Pollard arrogated that authority to himself. From his position of trust within the US Navy, Pollard delivered over 1000 classified documents to Israel for which he was well paid. Included in those documents were the names of over 150 US agents in the Mideast, who were eventually "turned" into agents for Israel.
But by far the most egregious damage done by Pollard was to steal classified documents relating to the US Nuclear Deterrent relative to the USSR and send them to Israel. According to sources in the US State Department, Israel then turned around and traded those stolen nuclear secrets to the USSR in exchange for increased emigration quotas from the USSR to Israel. Other information that found its way from the US to Israel to the USSR resulted in the loss of American agents operating inside the USSR. Casper Weinberger, in his affidavit opposing a reduced sentence for Pollard, described the damage done to the United States thus, [It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by... Pollard's treasonous behavior.
This should end the suggestion that Israel's spies are harmless. They are not. The United States' nuclear deterrent cost an estimated five trillion taxpayer dollars during the 50s and 60s to build and maintain, and less than $100,000 for Pollard to undermine. Israel waited 13 years to admit Pollard had been spying for them, and now lobbies for his release, having granted him Israeli citizenship.
Pollard is hardly the only Israeli spy operating in the United States. He just had the misfortune to get caught. Here are just a few examples of the Israeli spy operations that have been detected.
1947. Information collected by the ADL in its spy operations on US citizens is used by the House Select Committee on Unamerican Activities. Subcommittee Chair Clare Hoffman dismisses the ADL's reports on suspected communists as "hearsay.
1950 John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department's internal security section notes that the Israeli intelligence service is the second most active in the United States after the Soviets.
1954 A hidden microphone planted by the Israelis is discovered in the Office of the US Ambassador in Tel Aviv.
1956 Telephone taps are found connected to two telephones in the residence of the US military attaché in Tel Aviv.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Are you the kind of elitist that wants there to be a voting test? (yes)(no)
For extra credit: On those voting tests, which of the two parties wanted those rules? (D)(R)
I thought that party supposedly changed its tune...
Okay...I'm curious...for the Slashdot - Politics section, is there any way to have a user preference indicating there political bias?
I am interested in some idea as to how much a persons bias effects there posts. I think peoples beliefs in a specific item can add some karma or weight to a specific article. If they respond one way to a article about a candidate, then they may be saying it just because they are a Democrat or a Republican supporter. If an opposing opinon says something against the opposed, there may be less credibility because they are saying it just because they support the opposition.
Maybe you could have some issue criteria (how do you feel about death penalty, how do you feel about abortion, how do you feel about certain types of drug use, etc) which can help establish your polticial bias settings. I could see this almost like a Ok Cupid or related matching site type of meta data.
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Clinton ordered Reno to stop Californians from smoking weed for medicinal purposes, even though they made it legal.
Clinton defended homosexuality by implementing a don't ask don't tell policy.
Lieberman (Democrat VP candidate of 2000) voted for the internet child protection act (to ban pornography).
Liberals got Dr. Laura's TV show banned before it was aired and tried to do the same thing with a smear campaign on Mel Gibson's "The Passion" (so much so that he had to go through a tiny distribution company with his own money). But when Eisner turned down Fahrenheit 9/11 (which the contract with Miramax allowed him to do) and offered it back to Miramax (which the contract allowed him to do and as had been done with Moore's last movie), Liberals screamed censorhip and political shenannigans.
People on both sides of the aisles fight for freedom and people on both sides of the aisles are greedy power barons. But one side is the "good guys" and the other is the "bad guys" can you tell which is which?
Or does it really matter?
Putting aside minor considerations like the insanity of anihilating ten time the number of people killed in the twins, SQUARED
OK, I was going to comment that I think there are more than 50 thousand people in the middle east. There are a few million Jews in Iran alone and they are a minority there. But still.... gotta do the math.....
50k times 50k is.... (Taking off shoes to count)
2,500,000,000
OK, thats a bit over but I suppose we shouldn't nit pick.
or it could be 5k squared times 10.....
250,000,000
I would guess that's pretty close.
It would have made more sense if you listed France. They also have tons of Muslems in the country. Come on, just between the two of us - you are itching for an excuse to nuke France. Admit it.
I'll admit it.
It would be great to nuke France.
Death to the French!
(I don't care a bout the Muslim population. I just hate the French!)
Only one problem, France has Nukes too.
That's why Iran and North Korea is desperate to get Nukes.
To protect themselves.
Not to say that I like the idea of Iran and North Korea with Nukes.
But then I don't like the idea of France having Nukes.
(Because it prevents us from wiping them off the face of the earth.)
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
That the "news" is they're endorsing the incumbant. That alone tells us what we all really think about Bush.
Who would you rather vote for, a person who has endorsements from ... the vast right wing conspiracy, or a candidate who has the support of the Communist(s)....
/sarcasm
Down with the eeeviil capitalists! Kerry '04!
Hey now!
Don't go dissing the communists!
I worked hard to bring about the relations between us and Communist China!
And now the vast right wing conspiracy is shipping all the jobs to Communist China!
Slave Labor under Communism is the best thing that ever happened to Capitalism!
Three cheers for Communism and what it's done for eeevil Capitalists!
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
It's especially infuriating if you consider that Donald Rumsfeld probably sold these WMDs to Saddam Hussein personally in the early eighties. The US were Saddams best friend when he used his WMDs (compliments of Ronnie Reagan) on his own population in the early eighties and Donald Rumsfeld and other supporters of the neocon movement were involved much more than they would like to admit right now.
I suppose a Libertarian might say that it would be a lot less expensive to just not support fascist dictators rather than to subsidise selling them lots and lots of weapons, including WMDs, and then spending Billions more to invade them because they have traces of the WMDs we gave them.
But then those people would forget how much profit we made selling them those weapons, and even more profit invading them because of it.
Not to mention that if we didn't prop up the biggest threats to our country, our citizens might pay more attention closer to home. Like what assholes most politicians are.
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
More importantly, George W. doesn't seem to have a good command of the facts (for instance, see that first debate), and he makes dumb-ass decisions.
Cutting taxes for the rich while increasing spending was one of his dumber moves from a financial point of view: the economy is recovering, but the slow job growth fails to impress most economists, and sooner or later we have to pay off that massive debt. Invading Iraq turns out to be a bad move, but far worse is the complete and total cock-up of the occupation- some of the larger errors being (a) failure to stop widespread looting, creating an atmosphere of anarchy and turning Iraqis against us; (b) being overly aggressive in the use of force in populated areas, again turning people against us; (c) disbanding the Army, removing the last vestige of Iraqi sovereignty and leaving disgruntled soldiers with a lot of free time, instead of keeping them busy with reconstruction and stopping insurgents; (d)not bringing in the UN to create legitimacy, or bringing in enough other nations to help take up some of the burden on our military; (e) shutting down al-Sadr's newspaper (better him hurling lies at us than grenades); (f) fucking up in Fallujah, (i) by going in against advice, and (ii) by calling off the offensive BEFORE taking the city but AFTER pissing off all the people there... yaddah yaddah yaddah.
Like I said, maybe Bush and his guys are smart, but they are ignorant fools. So sure, you can be smart and still vote for them- but it's a vote for the ignorant and foolish.
What you say is true, but irrelevant. FDR did not invade Brazil.
No, you are confused. Germany, Japan, and Italy were the axis powers of the time and most likely inspired today's "axis of evil" label. A frequent criticism today is that Bush went after the weakest member of the axis of evil. I am pointing out that there are reasons for taking out the weakest member of your enemies first and that we have a very good example of that being done by a liberal Democratic president.
Do you know that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists?
Are you under the illusion that the only terrorist who are a threat are al-quaeda. Al-queda was not involved in the US Embassy hostage crisis, nor the attack on the US Marine Barracks in Lebanon, nor the attack on US tourists in North Africa, etc. Sadaam supported these groups in various ways, he also provided safe havens for some of their members on the run.
Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
> If the 155-mm shell was a "dud" fired long ago
Huh? None of the shells found have been duds. Being fired from an artillery piece would have broken the membrane between the two component chemicals (which mix in-flight to become Sarin).
Even assuming some kind of miraculous soft-landing where the shell wasn't destroyed, tests have proven that what was inside the shell was the unmixed compounds (unmixed because the shell was used improperly).
By the way, I highly recommend you check out the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, or at least read their Key Findings document. (Less than 19 pages!)
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Except that the United States never gave and WMD to Iraq. None whatsoever.
Plus, Iraq didn't use WMD on their own people in the early eighties. It was the Iranians that gassed that Kurd village (accidentally). It wasn't until the late 1980's when Saddam used WMD on his people, and by then relations with the U.S. had cooled.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
That's good man. Real good. Too bad some mod can't come along and think that...
Jay | http://oldos.org
And how many Kerry supporters know that France's Chrac was building Saddam in the early 80s and stocking it with high-grade uranium so the mad tyrant could build an a-bomb? How many Kerry supporters know that quite a few officials in the UN, France, Germany and Russia were getting illegal payola from the Oil for Food program? Not many I suspect. The list could go on and on.All this study demonstrates is that you can fudge studies to prove almost anything.
All this is to elect Kerry, someone whose only significant accomplishment in a quarter century of political life was to lie and slander his "band of brothers" in Vietnam. If elected, Kerry will make Carter look capable and those who voted for him look like fools.
By the way, Newsweek, not troubled by the fact that we've not yet voted, has already annouced a book that'll describe the Kerry presidency. Amazon has it at: Election 2004
Not very little "d" democratic is it?
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
Basically it says the guy behind The Truth About Iraq is some sort of PR adviser for politicians. I'd rather have my "facts" from an independent source. Multiple sources if possible.
Gorton Moore International als does branding/webdevelopment according to this page.That should explain their own website :)
YEAH! I mean, you can like, download all the MP3's you want, like TOTALLY FOR FREE, and like, there's NO WAY the record companies can get after you! It must be fucking great to live there! I'm gonna MOVE RIGHT NOW! I mean, I suppose you could download a lot of MP3's if the POWER worked consistently.
On a serious note, how in the hell can the media report the good news, if it's not safe to leave the Green Zone to go report on aforementioned "good news"? And delivering Iraq from the terror of a megalomaniac dictator is great... but now they have to worry about kidnappings (not just Americans- Iraqis are frequently kidnapped and held for ransom), assassinations (not just government officials, but doctors, professors, anyone educated), crime, suicide bombings by the insurgents, "collateral damage" done by precision bombs and flying artillery platforms... if things are going so well, why do they all want us to get the hell out? If it's such a paradise, you move there. Meanwhile, if they can, the Iraqis are trying to get out.
What's your agenda, anyway? What kind of terrorist, communist, puppy-kicking agenda are you promoting? Why do you hate freedom so much? Maybe because you're part of that subversive "Reality Based Community" the New York Times article was talking about http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH. html
The ability to recognize reality and facts does indicate "more going on in the brain-use department".
Since the article shows that Bush supporters got more of the facts wrong than Kerry supporters, his statement is correct.
Now, a very intelligent person could STILL vote for Bush, but that would still not contradict his statement.
The question is: How well would you score on that survey?
You might think you're very intelligent ("...smarter than 99.8% of Kerry supporters...") but what you think about yourself is not the question here. It's what you think about the facts under discussion.
Even someone as smart as yourself can be completely ignorant of the facts.
You don't like Kerry (but no details given).
You "despise" Edward's work as a lawyer.
You don't like Nader (but no details given).
You don't like all of Badnarik (but no details given).
You like some of Badnarik (but no details given).
You don't like all of Bush (but no details given).
You like some of Bush (but no details given).
So, the original question was:
Your answer: empty air.
Yeah! Damn liberals keep saying that there is no evidence to link Saddam Hussein and the nation he ruled over!
Fucking hilarious, man. So apparently it's not just Bush who keeps saying "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Osama bin Laden", like during the debates... it's a linguistic malfunction of Republicans in general? Madness really is contagious, I guess.
As for one gas shell, is that the best you've got after over a year of looking? Offhand, it sounds like Hussein just lost the goddamn thing- like it was sitting around in a warehouse with a bunch of other shells and nobody knew that it had sarin in it. Really. One shell? That's your reason for invading? You might as well say that the invasion and 1000 US casualties were justified because we really didn't like Saddam Hussein's moustache.
Anyway, it's just a liberal hit piece against conservatives, trying to pass it off as research.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. And keep telling yourself that reality is liberal propaganda against the Bush administration. Listen, I can be fairly left of center at times, but I honestly wouldn't have a problem if the Republicans would just elect someone who is (i) honest, (ii) sane, and (iii) willing to recognize that not everyone in the nation is a radical born-again nutjob, but that despite that they still deserve representation. John McCain, for instance. What the heck was so wrong with him that you guys had to go and elect a reject like George W. Bush? Shit, in the wild, if an animal like a rabbit, or a rat or a goat or something, if it gives birth to something as messed up as George W., the mother EATS THE DAMN THING for the greater good of the species.
To quote Indian Jones: "Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall."
Each person has his/her own "reality" (small "r") which is based upon his/her experiences, opinions and beliefs.
Two people can have the exact same experience, but view it in completely different ways based upon their past experiences and their opinions and beliefs. Example: the woman who went into a panic because she was on a plane with Syrian musicians.
Our realities generate filters which we perceive the events through. You see a plane full of people, she sees a terrorist threat.
These filters also block facts which would contradict our individual reality. This makes them pretty much self-sustaining.
It takes a MAJOR event to alter someone's reality. A good example is the mom in Michael Moore's movie who was happy to support Bush until her son was killed in the war. She could have also turned against anyone opposing the war as encouraging the enemy to kill her son.
So, no. The truth is not the truth. Each person has a "truth" that is unique to that person. They know it is the "truth" because it is consistent with reality (small "r").
Facts are facts. But not everyone will accept that a fact is a fact because their filters won't let them.
Many times, opinions, fantasies and fears get through the filters as "fact" and are incorporated into the individual's "reality".
It's a bit complicated. But each person is living in his/her own "reality". Even when you're both walking down the same street, seeing the same sights, hearing the same sounds.
Whether the original decision was right or wrong is really not the issue--everyone agreed to it, and it is in the past.
Maybe you missed the massive protests? I know I didn't. I was one of those protesting.
Does Sarin still count as a WMD or is that off the list since it really was found in Iraq?
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.
Good luck trying to explain your being fired for being an insolent asshole on the evil Bush regime.
Clean up your own playpen before you start bitching about the other side
Couldn't agree more, my ironic friend, couldn't agree more.
By the way, I really appreciate your use of the term 'Democraps', but shouldn't it be 'Dummycraps'? If you can't argue a single point without resorting to name-calling then I would hope that you could at least be a little more clever.
Iraq did actually have WMD. Remember the missiles they destroyed? Those were classified as WMD. That anyone thinks Iraq did NOT have WMD is odd. Of course, there is no reason to think Iraq had a "major" WMD program, but they did have actual WMD.
As to support for al Qaeda from Iraq, it is true that the 9/11 Commission did not conclude there was such support, but it is also true the Commission said there was evidence of a connection.
But both sides are absolutely wrong when they say Bush said Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. It never happened. That both sides think this shows that neither side is particularly bright.
I also like that Kull said, "they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda." It is true, these things do not matter. They are at best peripherally related to the primary justification and reasons we went to war: violation of UN resolutions (which is the actual basis for the Congressional approval of the use of force, and which is not in dispute whatsoever) and the stabilization and transformation of the region in the long run.
Also, it would be interesting to see what the Kerry supporters thought about what KERRY'S views are. I presume the reason they didn't ask is because the pollsters could not agree on what Kerry's positions are.
As much as I can't stand the radical right, I'm not in favor of someone radically left. I've dealt with knee-jerk liberals- hell, I lived in San Francisco for a while- and their smug, only-read-stuff-that-already-tells-me-what-I-belie ve worldview drove me up the wall. And they were just as out of touch with reality as anyone on the right.
I think what this nation desperately needs is a radical move to the center. Not speaking-in-tongues religious, not a legalizing hemp hippy. Somehow, things have gotten so polarized, however. And I believe it's because of this president, and his black-or-white, with-us-or-against-us worldview. There are times that's useful. It was comforting in the aftermath of 9/11. But the world has all these shades of grey, and we need someone who can see them and deal with them, and realize that as much as we may try to do the right thing, sometimes even the most moral people can err. Terrorism is awful, and it needs to be fought, and assassinating terrorists needs to be done. But we also need to understand that it's not as simple as George Bush makes it out. I think that partly terrorism is driven by something you could most easily describe as evil. But partly people come to support terrorism because of frustration at generations of poverty and oppression.
I went to Africa: I saw some of the poorest people in the world. It was this brutally, oppressively poor place that makes you sad, and angry, and desperate to do something. I remember sitting with a young beggar girl on the streets in Madagascar showing her pictures from a book because I didn't know what else to give her besides some time and company. I could give her money, but it would be gone tomorrow and the only thing I'd have given her in the end was the idea that begging was the way to go through life, and I didn't want to give her that. That country broke my heart, and it broke my spirit, like nothing ever before or since ever has. There was so much potential, so much beauty, in the people... and so much of it just being wasted. All this joy, and so much pain and anger. I've never been hated like that before in my life. I've never hated being part of the human condition like that ever before. I saw things I wish I had never seen there, and learned things I couldn't unlearn, but I couldn't unsee them, and I couldn't unlearn them, and I wonder if that's how war veterans feel. Three months in Africa- I'll never get my innocence and faith in humanity back. Ever.
And if I could change Africa for the better, how far would I go? Would 3000 American lives be worth it for millions of poor people? I think it would be. Not just that- I think I'd be morally obligated. I would see 9/11 happen all over again if it meant that it would really change all the injustice there. Of course I know it won't, and that's why I'm not a terrorist.
I don't know if that's what bin Laden thinks- I suspect he's as much motivated by vanity and power as anything; and I do not respect his choice. I don't think that is the solution. But I think that maybe I can understand where people come from, who are willing to kill. The world is an awful place, the injustices so great, that sometimes desperate measures seem like the answer, the only answer. And before you say I don't know what I'm talking about: I was there. I was in New York. I remember how my throat itched from inhaling the dust, I remember and knowing what was in that dust, and I remember the huge cloud that spread out like dark wings over Manhattan... for miles. And don't misunderstand me: I love that city. So maybe I don't totally know, no. But I have some inkling of what kind of price I'm talking about. And it'd be worth it, if it brought a little justice to the world. Before you get angry, ask yourself: isn't that the rationale we use when we
This is an example of the questions asked:
Is it your perception that that experts mostly agree that just before the war Iraq had WMD:
Which had the result: Bush supporters 56%; Kerry supporters 18%.
But at the Outpost notes: "This question is simply too confusing to be useful. Is it asking whether before the war the experts believed Iraq had WMDs or is it asking whether that is what the experts are saying now."
Note that before the war, it was widely agreed that Saddam had WMD, so from that perspective Bush supporters are correct. Only afterward did the "experts" change their POV, making the common Bush answer "wrong." But even then the Bush supporters are right about the WMD facts, since some 50 such weapons have been found. Kerry supporters, with only 18% believing in WMDs, are clearly the ones out of touch with reality.
But by inserting a mention of "experts" but confusing the time, those doing the survey could decide for themselves which answer they call right and spin the results any way they want. And given the technical expertise that went into this study, we can probably safely assume that the spin was deliberate. It was intended to generate a media buzz just before the election.
Read Outpost for more details.
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
No, you are confused. Germany, Japan, and Italy were the axis powers of the time and most likely inspired today's "axis of evil" label.
Actually, the "Axis" of WWII was, in fact, working in concert. Bush's "Axis of Evil" is an arbitrary assignment created by Bush to rally people (like you?) behind his agenda. Do you know that Iraq and Iran were enemies? Of course you do, so stop pursuing this ridiculous analogy.
Sadaam supported these [terrorist] groups in various ways, he also provided safe havens for some of their members on the run.
That's why over 1000 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis are dead? Death is not something I take lightly. There would have to have been an imminent threat to justify something like that.
This reminded me of another report done by the same group regarding misperceptions people had based upon their source of news, most notibly Fox News:
;)
So what did they say about people whose primary news source is slashdot?
Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.
I love when people say that the ACLU is a liberal only organization. It's the American Civil Liberties Union!
Regardless of what you think about a few of their cases and clients these are the same people who defended the American Nazi Party! You don't get any more conservative than that.
We are talking about a group which defends the Constitution of the United States of America. After all we live in Constitution-based federal republic which means the rights of one trump the requests of many. Without groups like the ACLU your beliefs may have been outlawed years ago. Doesn't matter if you are Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, Atheist... Communist, Conservative, Democrat, Libertarian or none of the above.
Get your Unix fortune now!
> Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt determined that Germany was our greatest threat despite the fact that Japan actually attacked us and we prosecuted that global war by taking down Italy first. The greatest threat is not necessarily the best first target.
Huh?
Are you unaware of the "Europe first" policy? Or are you making a subtle distinction between "greatest threat" and "greatest threat"?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Kerry was working from information massaged by the administration to make their case for war. According to multiple sources, the CIA report being quashed by the administration currently actually names names and says why they baked up "proof" of Saddam's supposed weapons and squelched dissenting views. The Wall Street Journal months ago dug up a confidential Bush administration plan prepared way before 9/11, detailing invasion of Iraq. (Forgive me for not linking links here. They're in http://theregular.com/, WSJ, blogs, etc.)
media girl
The problem is the uneducated electorate, not the policy. The policy is "Western civilization depends on oil. Cut the oil, and you kill western civilization. Make the savage world over there more civilized, by introducting Western Ideals."
Terrorists had the money, the training, and the reason because of the enormous power associated with the oil in that region of the world and because of Western knowhow. Remove the oil, remove that value, and *poof*, the problem goes away. There is nothing to fight for. Don't believe for a second that its about "a way of life going away," what arrogance.
Women in afghanistan are voting given the freedom to because they prefer wearing burkas? "I want to wear a burka, they told me if I go to the polls they will kill me: better go to the polls." Maybe the crazies believe that, much the same way they look at a turtle and watch it die, flipped on its back. "Oh, it's natural." What dreck.
Try to explain that Oil gives the Santa Cruz Eco Facists the power to even have a voice, and they will go ballistic, along with the brain dead media. "Biomass, Solar Power, Corn, anything but nuclear (ironically) and evil oil". You simply can't tell the truth about the interdependency, because somehow it has become evil.
Let's see a similar poll. Kerry wants a bunch of new programs, harping in the meantime about the deficit. Until Kerry can show, really show, how all of these new government programs, including sending more troops to iraq, can be done by rolling back 89 Billin in taxes on those who make > 200K, I'm going to say this is simply partisan sniping.
Politics has become nothing more than a football game, and slashdot readers have been recruited as its fans, thinking, arrogantly, they have the slightest clue, when they are merely parrots admiring the vomit they've reguritaged on their feathers.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
"Stop Confusing Me With Facts!"
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Iraq did actually have WMD.
/ 19/sprj.irq .bush/
9 /08/ira q.debate/
No, they did not.
Remember the missiles they destroyed? Those were classified as WMD.
No, they were not. "WMD" means nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Those missles were "banned" because of their range. They were not "WMD's".
That anyone thinks Iraq did NOT have WMD is odd. Of course, there is no reason to think Iraq had a "major" WMD program, but they did have actual WMD.
You're channelling MoJo JoJo.
As to support for al Qaeda from Iraq, it is true that the 9/11 Commission did not conclude there was such support, but it is also true the Commission said there was evidence of a connection.
No, they did not. They said that there were reports of contacts between the two, but not connections.
As if you ask some woman for a date and she turns you down. You had contact, but no connection.
But both sides are absolutely wrong when they say Bush said Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. It never happened. That both sides think this shows that neither side is particularly bright.
Check out what Bush actually said to Congress.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03
Look for the bit involving the WTC attack.
They are at best peripherally related to the primary justification and reasons we went to war: violation of UN resolutions (which is the actual basis for the Congressional approval of the use of force, and which is not in dispute whatsoever) and the stabilization and transformation of the region in the long run.
No. Again, look at what they actually said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/0
Lots about nuclear programs and aluminum tubes and Iraqi nuclear scientists.
Now we know that it was all lies.
Also, it would be interesting to see what the Kerry supporters thought about what KERRY'S views are. I presume the reason they didn't ask is because the pollsters could not agree on what Kerry's positions are.
This isn't about views. This is about facts. Not whether Kerry thinks such and such, but whether such and such happened or did not happen.
It seems that your post supports the findings of that article.
From outside of the US, I think the scientific view is clearly dominant in most countries, and they are basically befuddled by what is going on on in America, and alarmed by the force behind the befuddlement. There are a few crazy and fanatical countries out there, but the US is clearly the strongest and most dangerous one.
I think that explains how a lot of our friends see the Iraq situation. They agree that it is a mess and that it needs to be cleaned up, and they would even be willing to help. However, on the other hand, it is keeping the suddenly belligerent US busy, and it is also clearly BushCo's own deliberate mistake. From that perspective, it's just as well to let the US keep playing with the tar baby for now, and their biggest fear is probably that BushCo might unilaterally withdraw and thereby force the rest of the world to clean it up. Fortunately (from their perspective), the oil aspect makes that unfeasible and unlikely.
The ugly facts are that Saddam was only a nuisance and not worth an entire war. Dubya believed otherwise, and to heck with those facts. What other crazy things does Dubya believe?
I believe I don't want to find out, and I hope Dubya is out of there very soon. Fortunately, fanatical birds of a feather tend to flock together in their little red states, so it increasingly looks like the swing states are going to swing the other way.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
NPR did an long piece on this same idea on the Diane Rehm Show. The guest was in complete agreement with you:
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/04/10/20.php
A very dangerous way to lead, IMO, when this faith overrides and quite often stifles other reasonable points of view.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
The 3rd reich was a democracy. Hitler won the leadership by popular vote. There were certainly undemocratic elements to the structure of the 3rd reich, just as there are with modern America. Reforming Germany after WWII didn't have too much to do with "introducing democracy", it was about de-nazification.
Japan is interesting in that it had a home-grown democracy movement which had been suppressed by the Japanese leadership. And guess what happened during the US occupation? The US began to get the red scare, and the fact that the Japanese home-grown democracy movement was basically socialist in orientation meant that the US cracked down on them in exactly the same way that the wartime Japanese leadership had. In fact, the US managed to reinstate many of the same wartime leaders precisely because they were strongest at suppressing their own people.
Japan has been a virtual one-party state since the US occupation. It's about as democratic now as it was before and during the war.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact.
k er ry.terror/
No he did not. His exact words were:
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.
If you want to parse that out, in the past, terrorists were a "nuisance". Currently, they are the "focus of our lives". In the future, they will be only a "nuisance" again.
Seems like you don't know what was actually said.
Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question.
No. You cannot take something out of context and then claim that it is an "undeniable fact" that he said that.
None of the questions in that survey were done that way. They were all very explicit and complete.
That said: I was once a registered Democrat; I'm now a registered Republican, and I doubt that I'll ever go back to the Democratic ticket. Why? While I was a Democrat, I never had a Republican call me stupid.
I've always wondered about people like you. Why do you let other people control how you will vote?
Oh, right. The proof is in the article.
I never saw conservative think tanks come out with a study showing that my political affiliation implied that I was disconnected from reality.
Search amazon for Ann Coulter. Look for a boot titled "Treason".
I wish the converse were true; but it's not. As a known conservative, particularly in this election season, I have been on the receiving end of enough hatred, bigotry, and invective directed at me to last a lifetime.
Again, amazon.com, Ann Coulter.
Most of it has come from strangers who know nothing about me other than that I'm a registered Republican, which makes me an instant candidate for their own personal two-minute hate.
WTF? Do you have a bumperstick on your ass or something? How can a stranger tell that you're a "registered Republican"?
The only "fact" that matters to them is my party affiliation, which they apparently believes gives them the right to be abusive, insulting, and treat me as if I were some sort of sub-human.
Dude, you're walking around with a bumpersticker on your ass. That doesn't qualify you for the top of the evolutionary ladder.
So... even if I were convinced that Kerry was a better candidate than Bush, I would be voting against him, purely becuase of his association with such an arrogant, hateful, spiteful, and all-around viscious politcal party.
Again, you let other people control how you'll vote and then you complain about people treating you like a sub-human?
Puppets ARE sub-human.
However, the party in general - and the leadership in particular - has gotten progressively more hateful and viscious over the last 20 years.
4 years ago. Clinton. Starr. Now who's the problem?
Their "facts", opinions, and interpretations are useless to me, becuase before I can even enter into a debate about their validity, I have to at least implicitly agree to their negative characterization of me - because unless I do, they are unwilling to consider my "ignorant" and "uninformed" point of view.
You let them control how you will vote and you don't believe you're "ignorant"?
Until the actions of the Democratic party leadership and the rank and file show me that they've lost their penchant for assuming their own inherent superiority, relying on hate speech and ad homenin attacks rather than rational argument... well, I'm going to be ignoring them.
Rush Limbaugh.
Thanks for supporting the article's findings.
If there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why did a federal judge (appointed by Clinton) award $100,000,000 to plaintiffs payable by Saddam?
I'm sorry, but you just said, "no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein". That's the same line blurring that causes the misconceptions reported in the article in the first place. Of COURSE there is a link between Iraq and Saddam, he ran the place for decades! However, that has nothing to do with the issue being disputed, because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are very different guys (while yes, both of them have beards).
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950 . That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
The correct answer is (3) -- not (4), as you must be presuming I think it is. According to Duelfer, Iraq had the desire for WMD, and some limited activities to support them, but no actual weapons and no major program. (The report basically said that the UN inspections had basically forced Iraq to give up its program, but Saddam Hussein really wanted to restart the program once he was out from under the thumb of the UN.)
According to the study that we're discussing here, this is how Bush & Kerry supporters responded to the question above:
- Bush: 19% / Kerry: 7%
- Bush: 38% / Kerry: 16%
- Bush: 31% / Kerry: 50% (correct answer)
- Bush: 4% / Kerry: 20%
This question is consistent with the results of the study in general: (1) people are really shockingly misinformed, (2) Bush supporters are significantly more misinformed than Kerry supporters for some reason, and (3) everybody sees facts in a way that's skewed to fit their preconceptions.Rather, accourding to Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 the definition is:
http://www.metrokc.gov/prepare/docs/HIVA_Terror
The sky is not blue, rather, it is lacking red and green! To most people, there's no necessary difference between the two.
You ask a woman out, she turns you down.
You ask a woman out, she says yes, you go out a few times and sleep with her.
Seems like an obvious difference to me.
What's really frightening is that our collective national intelligence may have sunk to the level that we actually deserve a leader like George Bush. Look at Utah, they keep putting Orin Hatch back in office. What does that say about them?
The lengths the right will go to win, the unflinching conviction of their own rightness in any position they're trying to justify should scare the hell out of anyone with a brain.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
JESUS H CHRIST!
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Bullshit. Retract. I've heard news (both warts and roses) about the Afganistan election from many outlets including NPR. Will you retract or will you confirm that you are one of those people for whom the position is more imprortant than the facts?
XML causes global warming.
And here's the finish.
:D
:D
That was put in in 2003.
I wanted to see if you'd fall for it and you did.
Thanks for helping prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD, according to U.S. law. Cheers!
What was shown was that the US re-wrote its own laws in 2003 to fit Iraq's capabilities into the terms used by Bush.
By that definition, the US has killed Iraqi citizens with "WMD's". Wasn't that one of the reasons we were going to war against Saddam? Because he used "WMD's" against civilians?
the true believers are sequestered from reality and know their prayers by heart. Truth does not matter. True believers do not respond to evidence.
Do you know that Iraq and Iran were enemies? Of course you do, so stop pursuing this ridiculous analogy.
You are reading far too much into this, you are seeing poltitics where there is none. Iraq and Iran's mutually hostility is irrelevant, they both hate us more. The US/UK worked with Stalin and had no illusions about him, yet they worked with and armed him to overcome the Axis. The point I am making, and the one that you are missing, is simply that when you have several enemies taking out the weakest can be a viable strategy. Those who complain that we should have gone after North Korea or Iran first are engaging in politics not military strategy. They are intellectually equivalent to the flag waving pro-war Bush supports you seem to dislike, they are merely the mirror image. The positions, analysis, and such that are being thrown around this past year are heavily tainted by election year politics, both pro and anti-war. Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
"Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt determined that Germany was our greatest threat despite the fact that Japan actually attacked us and we prosecuted that global war by taking down Italy first. The greatest threat is not necessarily the best first target."
Huh? Are you unaware of the "Europe first" policy? Or are you making a subtle distinction between "greatest threat" and "greatest threat"?
I believe I stated the policy and the first phase of its implementation. In both usages of "greatest threat" the reference is to Germany. The "first target" reference was to Italy. Italy being the first of the three Axis powers to surrender and the least threatening.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They completely IGNORE that the elections in Afghanistan went well, and that women actually got to vote over there.
We personally consider democratic elections to be a good thing, but that doesn't mean everyone wants them. North Korea, for example, is as fiercely patriotic as America. The people would react very negatively if someone swept in and tried to set up a new system.
Except that the United States never gave and WMD to Iraq. None whatsoever...It wasn't until the late 1980's when Saddam used WMD on his people, and by then relations with the U.S. had cooled.
Uh...
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're, objectively and factually, completely wrong.
Summary: throughout the '80s, the US provided, allowed the shipment from US companies, and funnelled through other nations in the region weapons (including Howitzers, helicopters, and missile technology), chemical and biological agents (including some that may have been used against US troops in the first Gulf War), and other ``dual use'' technologies to Iraq.
This persisted through the late '80s, long after Iraq initially used chemical weapons against Iran in the early part of the war and a fair amount after it became clear that Iraq was carrying out a campaign against Kurdish militants that included widespread use of chemical weapons.
During this time, US ambassadors and politicians insisted that Iraq and the US had a strong interest in each other and would have a long and rosy future ahead, and US military intelligence provided Iraq with intelligence that would play a key part in strategic planning for campaigns against both the Iranians and the Kurdish rebels that included widespread use of chemical weapons.
Nice try, though.
No, you're confused. FDR didn't invade Brazil, a country that wasn't threatening the US, and had no capability to make war against the US.
GW did. You seem to think, for whatever incomprehensible reason, that Iraq was a threat to us. This is exactly what the article was talking about. Too many people persist in believing that Iraq was a threat, when it's been shown to have not been a threat.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I think people dumb down Bush's effect on Middle Eastern politics too much to make a vision that suits their own political ideals. What Bush has done, if nothing else, stirred the pot. His affect (as far as the US is concerned) has really been both good and bad. The net effect of Bush has had really remains to be seen though.
The Good:
What Bush has done that is inarguably good for the US is basically destroyed all terrorist safe havens. That is not to say that there are not places where terrorist can train with relative impunity, but they no longer get government sanctioned support. You can not find any place in the world today where Al-Qaeda has a building with its name on it. That was not always true. Bush has basically declared that anyone who harbors Al-Qaeda is an enemy and directly responsible for whatever they do. No nation, no matter how autocratic and US hating, wants to be responsible for a WMD going off in the US. The policy is pretty clear that if something like that gets traced back to a sovereign nation, that nation is, in so many words or less, fucked.
Bush has done horrible damage to the financial and material backing of these terrorist organizations. The loss of Afghanistan for these groups was really a devastating blow for their ability to train, operate, and communicate. The US has made communication extremely dangerous for these organizations. They operate more autonomously now which might make them more aggressive, but because they can no longer effectively communicate and offer material support, they are far less effective in how they operate. In particular, it is damn near impossible for Al-Qaeda to operate in the US these days due to this new reality. That isn't to say that they are not trying and that they might not succeed, but you can bet for ever 10 operations they try 9 of them never get off the ground.
The Bad:
Bush has radicalized the Islamic world and made the life of moderate Islamic people rough. Before, people who pushed for a more liberal Islamic governments sited the US as the ideal to strive for. The kind of wealth and freedom that US citizens have compared to the people in many of these Islamic nations is very enviable and tempting. US operations against Islamic countries have made it extremely hard for these people to continue to site the US as an ideal nation due to the view that the US is anti-Islam. That is not to say that the plight of the moderate follower of Islam is not impossible, it is just a lot harder these days. I would say that it is misleading to blame the terrible losses that moderates it Iran suffered in the last election as having anything to do with the US. The reason for that can be squarely placed on the actions of conservatives in the country. The situation with the US might not have helped matters, but I think it is safe they would have taken terrible losses regardless if 9/11 and Bush had never happened.
Al-Qaeda today has gained a massive recruiting tool in the form of Bush. You can see the effects in Iraq when body count is more important then materials. Bush has really made Al-Qaeda poor on materials, but rich in warm bodies.
To Be Seen:
The real judgment of Bush is not going to come until after he is out of the White House. Iraq is going to be how Bush is judged. If 10 or 20 years from now Iraq is a thriving Democracy with a good relationship with the US on par with Japan or Germany after World War II, I think history will give Bush a lot of credit, much in the same way Clinton got credit for fixing Serbia. You need to remember that when the US advocated going into Serbia it met with a lot of opposition both before and during the operation. It wasn't until after Clinton was out of office that we look back at what happened as being for the best. Bush is going to be judged in much the same way. The current day opinions of him really don't matter in the final judgment of things. The question is whether or not Iraq can reach stability and form something that we recognize as a Demo
The questions are not clear, the 'right' answers are ambiguous, some 'right answers' are actually wrong, and conclusions drawn are subjective nonsense. In other words this study is nothing short of complete crapola. People posting keep sighting facts, but this study contains almost no factual information of any kind.
There is one thing that we can learn from this study though: The fact that Kerry supporters jump all over this crap and take the study at face value without thinking or questioning is evidence that Kerry supporters are a bunch of empty heads waiting to be duped by propoganda.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree.
Unfortunately, it's not the only one. Please vote for *anybody* but these clowns and help to destroy this duopoly masquerading as a democracy. You may think that it's a "wasted vote" today, but citizens of the future will consider you a brave visionary.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
>> This is the one and only smart thing George W Bush is doing. He's playing on the 85% of Americans that 'believe', the
>> 85% which are religious. This is the insanity of religion, the lack of factural reasoning. How can one run a country on this?
s/religious/Christian or Jewish/;
I'm pretty sure I'm very religious, and Bush's actions have ensured that I'd eat a bullet before ever supporting him or his ilk.
I tend to agree with you and think WMD=NBC weapons.
But you're both flying off on a tangent here, since the resolutions were not only against WMD, but also the development capabilities, and the delivery systems. All of these where proscribed by resolutions. The missiles were banned as delivery systems for WMDs, not banned because of their conventional explosive yield.
I could maybe grant you that a fuel-air bomb destructs massively, but calling regular tank mines WMDs is super-silly.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bush has ... but Kerry ... but Bush ... CRAP ... is becoming more and more of an intelectual downward spiral, ooops, economy anyone
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
Very true. I've been watching some of the US news-channels and I'm not supprised people start to live in different realities. There is so much spinning of the facts by all sides and by the news broadcasters that it should be almost imposible for the American public to tell what is true and what isn't.
(What ever happened to independent journalism in the US? The entertainment value of the news shows seems to be more important than the facts)
In fact, the study authors have their facts wrong. The 9/11 commission concluded ONLY that Iraq and Al Qaeda did not cooperate with regard to the 9/11 attacks. The primary link is so well known that it is getting rediculous to assert it doesn't exist: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Sure, but the question in the study was that the US government possessed evidence of strong ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I wouldn't say al-Zarqawi visiting Iraq occasionally represented evidence of strong links to Hussein.
Also, there were quantities of Sarin gas that were discovered in artillery shells. While this is not WMD on the scale predicted, it is enough to refute the absolutist position taken by this study that no WMD have been found in Iraq.
Check the date on the study - it was in late 2003. At that time no WMD had been foudn in Iraq. The question was: "Have WMD been found in Iraq", not "Will WMD be foudn in Iraq".
I d agree that the study had some biases, but at the same time, your refutations are either tenuous or in the case of the WMD issue, not valid.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In a nutshell, Bush supporters exist in reality and Kerry supporters exist in a world filled with fluffy marshmallows.
:)
Stay tuned for the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man's attack on NYC should Kerry get elected
"TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday the re-election of President George W. Bush would be in Tehran's best interests
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran is supporting Democratic Senator John Kerry against Bush.
The Bush campaign said "No thanks."
"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said."
So yes, Iran endorsed Bush. It's not suprising that Bush didn't "accept" the endorsement, but that doesn't mean Iran wouldn't prefer to see Bush win.
BTW, your post is ironically humorous considering how unglued from reality the republican line has become.
Thank you, drive through :)
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush. [So.. they don't want Kerry.. who would you suppose they prefer? Cobb? Badnarik? Nader? Mickey Mouse?]
The Bush campaign said no thanks.
"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," [If they didn't get an endorsement from Iran, what are they "not accepting here, Rayonic? -phy ] Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the U.N. Security Council."
Kerry, who says halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He says Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.
"It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of member of the axis of evil," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said. "But Americans deserve a president who will have a comprehensive strategy to address the potential threat of Iran's growing nuclear program."
The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.
The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated. [*cough* Iran Contra *cough* - phy]
The United States supported Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummeted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea and prewar Iraq.
The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies -- the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."
And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.
"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran," he said.
Mofidi added that "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."
Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Koizumi retracts stated support for Bush's reelection
Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 08:17 JST
TOKYO -- A day after saying he hoped U.S. President George W Bush would be reelected, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on Friday effectively retracted his earlier remark after drawing fire from the opposition and forcing his aides onto the defensive.
"It's not good to interfere in another country's election. Japan-U.S. relations are important and Japan will firmly develop the alliance no matter who is president," Koizumi told reporters the day after saying he wants Bush to retain the presidency. (Kyodo News)
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
note to mods, someone else already posted what I posted... just fyi.. dern.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Reagan's use of the missile shield wasn't to make americans safe from russian missiles; it was to fool americans into thinking that we were safe from russian nukes, giving him latitude in that area.
BTW, rest of the world... if you want to make a difference, you need to dissuade our allies. The conservatives in this country are zombies, they have no concept of cause and effect or reality. They parrot and believe whatever they hear from their pundits, and it's worse than ever now. It doesn't matter whether it's (faith therefore p) or (faith therefore not-p), they swallow it without question. Is $complicated_political _agenda a good or bad thing? Well, they've gotta check in with Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Condi Rice and the local hate militia to find out.
The most annoying part of it sometimes is that the "faith" people use the bible as a cover for *anything*, but when it comes to actually doing what Jesus taught, that's right out the window. They've got faith... and apparently that means they don't need God anymore. Their "faith" is just a code for hating non-whites (blacks, native americans/indians/whateveritistoday, arabs, persians, asians, and - when it's not an election year - hispanic people. Not to mention gays, anyone who's not christian, anyone who thinks blue-sky science is a justifiable endeavor, and worst of all ... Heretics! (non republican christians)).
I wouldn't mind conservatives so much if they didn't hold that non-theists aren't people. The right to freedom of religion isn't about which flavor of judeo-christianity one gets shoehorned into.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Your reply: "Et al" in this case must mean "and numerous other intelligence servies around the world, and the United Nations."
Actually, no. I meant the Bush administration shills who trumpeted that "we know where the weapons are." Again, not true. The case was overstated, and no WMD have been found.
That came from Fox News, and it quotes a Republican senator during the release of the 9/11 Report. If you care to read more on how the case for war was overstated, check out Pentagon 'exaggerated' Iraq risk or Report concludes no WMD in Iraq (US Military report) or Weapons Experts: Iraq Had Not the Means to Produce WMDSure Saddam wanted WMD, but there was no way he could produce them within a decade after sanctions were lifted. I would appreciate more facts from you before taking your argument seriously.
I wrote: Bush et al said (or strongly implied repeatedly) that Iraq had significant connections to Al Qaeda
Your reply: They did have significant connections (friends in common). They just weren't working directly together. Perhaps you should look at the findings of the 9/11 Commission a little more closely yourself.
As for the "connections to Al-Qaeda" claim, the 9/11 Commission (bi-partisan), said:
Don't believe this story? Read NO SADDAM AL-QAEDA LINK: RUMSFELD or No links to Saddam, al-Qaeda pair claim.Please, explain how Iraq & Al-Qaeda worked together, and be sure to use facts from reliable sources. Rush Limbaugh and Drudge do not count.
Your sig said: Iraq war justified
I took a look, and wow, you really found text in there that does not exist. I did find nice quotes like these:
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability- which was essentially destroyed in 1991- after sancions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized.
Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability.
Please let me know how this "proves" the war was justified. It admits Saddam did not have the WMD that Bush claimed, and that sanctions had to be lifted and Iraq's economy normalized before WMD could be developed. FYI, that doesn't happen overnight.
No matter how much wild conjecture gets repeated, facts are stronger.
Frankly, there's a limit to how much someone can play the "what if" game. What if Gore had won, would we have responded the same way to Iraq? Would China, France, and Russia financed Iraq to the point that Saddam would rebuild his stockpile? Maybe, maybe not.
Bush made a huge mistake. It's one thing to pre-empt a possible terrorist attack -- as scary as the new doctrine of pre-emption is I can see how it is justified in situations -- but he played the "what if" game too and got it wrong.
"What if we go in there, and they greet us with flowers! We'll spread democracy! We'll free the people! We'll be heros!"
But he was wrong. Maybe in a few years we'll see a real democracy, a real lasting peace, and maybe we'll be seen as liberating heros -- by everyone, including would-be terrorist recruits.
But that won't happen now, and not until we've spent billions more and lost more troops.
We are, for the most part, alone. And we're hurting. It's not going well. Maybe with a little more time and a little more pressure we could've gotten more help, a better plan, and a more united America behind the invasion. But because of the desert heat coming in, we had to go in in March. Our diplomatic and social efforts were canceled because of tactical planning.
He's responsible for this mess. And that kind of blunder DOES NOT DESERVE A SECOND TERM.
That's what separates Republicans from reasonable people -- Republicans go out of their way to ruin everyone else's fun because they have too much a rod up their ass to have any fun themselves. They try to legislate morality, while simultaneously espousing a darwinian code of conduct where the strong can prey on the weak.
There will come a point in the next 4 years where Iraq is so monumentally, catastrophically, disasterously fucked up that even Fox News will have to admit it. If Bush is the president when that happens, then Bush supporters will have to face reality, and their wrath will be Biblical. Bush will be put to the question, and with luck some of his chronies may even face jail time.
To put in another way, if Kerry is elected, Bush and his chronies will get off scott-free. Some of them will even re-appear in a future Republican administration. The only way the guilty will pay for their crimes is if they are given enough rope.
Tell your friends: Vote Bush on November 2nd.
[ This is not a troll. Check my posting history! ]
fish and pipes
I still reach different conclusions-- For example, I don't believe that increasing the number of troops in Iraq is the answer.
That approach was tried, with disastrous results, in Vietnam.
Month after month, more and more troops were sent in. Month after month, more bombs rained down. Month after month, the body counts scrolled on the nightly news screen-- shouting that fifty new Americans and 1000 new VC had gone on to the 'Happy Hunting Ground'.
Still, they fought on. How was it possible when we had dropped more bombs on them than were dropped in all of World War II?
I was just growing up while all this was going on. I missed out on the draft lottery by one year. (I graduated from high school in 1975.) It made an impression.
I have a 15 year old daughter and two sons, 13 and 8. I do not want them to be going to Iraq unless it is on a tourist visa.
I will gladly give my life and even my children's lives to defend my neighbors when it is required. My neighbors did the same for me numerous times and I have enjoyed the benefits of freedom for my whole life with no personal cost.
This war is not required. This war is not helping any one. There is no end in sight. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.
This is a deep dark pit that we are marching into. Do not go gently into that dark pit. Vote for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo.
Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! Ouch!
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
If you're going to bitch about the cost of supporting "self-destructive" drug habits, why don't you care about the cost of the war on drugs? It costs enormous amounts of money, and puts hundreds of thousands of otherwise productive workers into prison. For many drugs, there isn't even any evidence that many they're any more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes.
Legislation should NEVER be about morality. It should only provide a minimal legal framework to protect people from hurting each other, and to encourage those things society considers valuable (like science and art, two things Republicans hate above anything else).
Wouldn't that be directly counterproductive to an open, reasoned debate? Today we can just brush off anybody and marginalize any opinion by labeling it Conservative or Liberal. Doesn't not knowing a person's bias ahead of time force us to read the actual comment and form an opinion based on the arguments, rather than on the author's "bias"?
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
See if you can find his article "Two Iraqs" - it gives a good example of the alternate universe that Bushites live in.
I mean, really - suicide bombings, homemade roadside bombs, a state of near-civil war, and they claim "everything is fine" in Iraq? I DON'T THINK SO!
Patrolling ftw