Slashdot Mirror
Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities
corngrower writes "A report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland correlates voters' perceptions of world attitudes and events with their choice in candidates. It's an interesting read, and shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq."
Seriously, after reading it, I was quite happy that someone put out some evidence for what I've observed. If I had a dollar for every time I tried to tell someone that Iraq really didnt have nukes....
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
According to the survey, based on the views of Bush supporters or at least what they believe Bush believes in, it seems like most of them should really be Kerry supporters.
The notion that liberals and conservatives perceive the world differently seems fairly obvious. The rest just seems like flamebait.
Seriously, given either political viewpoint, I'm sure I can find plenty of facts and "world attitudes" that would give strong support to that position. If the President announced that the facts on Iraq agree with his points and that polls show that a worldwide majority agree with him, would you accept his word? If not, why should the reverse be true?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Sounds reasonable to me. As this nytimes piece goes in considerable detail in,
most of Bush's politics/decisions are about faith and not fact. Anybody who votes for him has
to share his worldview.
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. =)
> In other news, 93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Yeah, but Bush supporters think only 7% are.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
More in tune with facts, too. But the Kerry supporters didn't do very well, either, which is scary.
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.
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.
And that's what we're talking about. You still insist that Iraq was the story, despite the complete lack of evidence.
There were other countries in the world much more deserving of our attentions. Afghanistan, for example, should have about 200,000 more troops in it than it currently does. North Korea needs invading. Iran needs invading. Saudi Arabia needs invading.
You want perpetual war? I'm right with you. You have this liberal's support, if only you pick the right targets.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
In saying that lack of proof that there's no Al Queda-Iraq link, means there might be one, you're using the same crazed logic that got us into the war in the first place. Just because Saddam couldn't prove that the weapons hadn't been destoyed, didn't mean they weren't destroyed.
God told me that you can't prove a negative. Now prove he didn't.
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.
The war in Iraq isn't perfect, but according to a lot of interviews with soldiers and stuff, it's not as bad as NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN wants you to believe.
Even though Iraq doesn't have nukes, Saddam was an insane asshole who would've tried as hard as possible to get them -- several reports show that he was using the oil-for-food program to bypass UN sanctions
You're right. It isn't perfect, and it isn't as bad as NBC says...but that is irrelevant because it shouldn't have happened the way it did. The president was so sure about Iraq from day one. He knew what he and the VP wanted to do, and listened only to the facts to get them to that conclusion.
There is no doubt that Saddam was an insane asshole. But there are a lot of dictators who are insane assholes. But why Iraq? "They posed a threat to the US!" Yes, but so do a dozen other countries who actually HAVE nukes or other WMDs. So I ask again, why Iraq? "Because saddam committed genocide!" Yes, but so do a dozen of other countries...some much worse than Iraq. So I ask again, why Iraq?
The war was against terrorists, not Iraq. The more that I hear about this the more I hate the situation Bush put us in.
I know the job market isn't that great. Hell, I'm only working part time. But I ALSO know that Bush inherited a HORRIBLE economic situation and managed to turn it into the smallest recession in US history.
HE turned it into the smallest recession? Really? He did? Greenspan had nothing to do with it? If you think his tax cut saved this country, you don't know much about economics. The majority of people who got those cuts didn't spend the money. They put it in the bank. The reason IMO and from what I've read is that the recession was so short was because our economy was so strong at the start of it (since we're assuming the president controls this) thanks to Clinton.
Now then, the recession is technically over...but the state of the union is still questionable. The stock market is way down, jobs on average pay less now than they did, less people have health-care, the price of oil is going to kill the operating income of most companies, people (in general) have less money. If this is what you classify as "isn't that great" (implying average), then I'd hate to see your definition of a bad market.
I know the world doesn't agree with us. People: THIS IS OKAY. The world looks out for the world. The US needs to look out for the US.
I agree with you here. It is okay that the world doesn't agree with us. But it is NOT OK to have the world HATE us. Have people cringe when they hear the name of the United States in other countries.
You think this helps us beat terrorism? You think this will make us safer? Alienate our allies? Piss off other nations? This is in the United States interest?
The US does need to look out for the US, but somewhere in there Bush crossed the line and his actions are no longer in sync with what the US needs.
After 9/11 almost every nation was behind the US. As long as we carried out just actions with strong reasons, we would have had support the whole way. But Bush didn't lead that way. He decided to go unilaterally. Ignore the world, act as the US alone. I've never seen the world so close to together as it was right after 9/11...and that has been squandered away.
No thank you. I won't vote to re-elect George W. Bush. He had his chance, and he blew it.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
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.
I took the battery out of my clock. It's steadfast and resolute when telling me the current time. It has even been proven correct on occasion.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Is an unsupported allegation justification for going to war? Would you condemn an individual to death over an unsupported allegation? What about an entire army of humans?
There's no proof that you or I were involved in the 9/11 attacks. That doesn't mean that we were not involed, it just means that there was no proof. Blindly assuming that we have involvement without a shred of real evidence would not only be a meaningless thing to say, but it would also be a reckless assumption. If there is no proof, there is no proof and we should just accept that. If an investigation uncovers some solid evidence, sobeit...but until then, we can't justify war based on a useless suspicion based on the idea that two enemies MUST have colluded. That theory just doesn't make any sense.
Interesting that you should say this, I recently heard an interview with a Canadian journalist who was released after a long and frightening kidnapping in Iraq. He said that the American-paid Iraqi police were supporting the insurgents. (Clearly, this can't be the case with all of the Iraqi police, but these new cops don't sound like all they're cracked up to be). This is just part of the rosy picture that the Bush administration paints of our occupation. The intel that told us to go to Iraq is now telling us that the best case scenario is a status quo in the insurgency, and the worst case is a full civil war. A civil war means another Vietnam, or the possibility of pulling out and accepting an Islamic dictatorship. Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why we supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the 70's and 80's? To stop the Islamic dictatorship in Iran? Didn't we topple the Taliban for similar reasons (Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorship sponsoring terrorism)? Is there a chance that we could have mitigated the threat that Saddam posed without a war? I'm not suggesting that they were nice guys and I'm not suggesting that there weren't any atrocities going on there, but this war is not about liberation or Saddam's atrocities against his people.
I have a few issues with this. Is steadfast and resolute a good thing when you're just wrong? The fact that this president does not seem to have the capability to analyze a situation and realize that it's not working...or come up with a plan B -- just in case (for example) his cabinet was wrong and they won't throw roses at our soldier's feet. He seems unable to plan for reality. When reality happens, he spins it into good news -- like everyhting is peachy in Iraq (except for the hard work that our soldiers have to do). Reality happened and our reasons for going into Iraq magically changed from WMD to terror. When they failed to provide a link, it changed to liberating the Iraqi people. When people disagreed with his reasons for going to war, Bush spun it into suggesting the naysayers they were pro-Saddam. His only admitted failure in Iraq was winning too fast. This does not seem like a critical thinker. This seems like a stubborn man, who people are willing to stand behind because they're afraid of not doing enough. I call this "dosomethingism". A paranoia where people want
-Turkey
This is the same line of thinking they highlight in the article. "Somebody who agrees with me can't be wrong!" I'm sure it is totally IMPOSSIBLE that a judge could award money to plaintiffs without it implying IRREFUTABLY that there was a connection! Are we too make policy decisions based on what judges do after the fact? Maybe instead of assuming we should actually, maybe, ask the judge why he did or what evidence he did it on? Policy should be based on facts, not non-causally related actions by others.
"why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?"
As far as the IED:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.
Consult the link on all the myriad details about how to tell whether it was a "dud" or not.
But the question remains...this is your evidence? One lousy old shell of questionable utility constitutes weapons of mass destruction (note that both the words "weapons" and "mass" imply plurality)? We went to war for one fucking shell?! Is this the evidence you think the liberals are trying to "spin" away? Again here goes your reasoning: because of my assumptions, the premises must be true! Could it be possible that the presence of this IED shell would not imply irrefutably that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? No, impossible...it's a scrap of evidence that could possibly indicate that, so therefore it MUST indicate that. What if they had, oh, a thimble full of sarin? Is that WMD? What if they had some mustard plants...that's obviously WMD right?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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.
The question now is, could it have been handled better, and is it reasonable to expect that it should have been? Much to Bush's embarassment, a sizeable chunk of the population thinks so. There was no imminent threat from Iraq, the WMD situation was much less clear than the administration claimed (especially its claims about Hussein's nonexistent nuclear weapons program), and there was time to develop a broader coalition, formulate a plan that would have minimized the looting and chaos that followed Hussein's departure, and make an honest case about why Hussein needed to go.
The problem is, there are any number of "insane assholes" running countries, each of whom would love to get themselves some nukes. There was no clear evidence that Hussein was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, but what little controversial evidence existed was latched onto by this administration and presented to Americans as a clear threat.
I'm not looking for a premature pullout from Iraq. Now that we're there, the best thing we can do is get things stabilized so that Iraq can be independent. But the judgment Bush showed in taking us into war is, in my mind, proof positive that he's not the man to finish the job.
The question isn't whether we are obligated to put the interests of the world at large ahead of our own. The question is, when most of our allies are telling us an action is foolhardy and ill-conceived, we should be willing to try and make our case. If we cannot, then there may be a chance that our plan really is foolhardy.
This is what Kerry meant by a "truth test" in the first debate. We're supposed to support and respect our allies. That's why they're called allies, not enemies. We listen to them, their opinions matter to us, and they accord us the same respect. Seriously, how many times have your friends talked you out of doing something tragically stupid?
Bush wants to live in a reality of his own creation, where America is always right and the decisions of its commander-in-chief are always the best decisions that could be made. In order to continue to live in this reality, he cut himself off from the press (his famous April 14, 2004 press conference was only the third of his administration), interacts primarily with those in his very insular clique, and refuses to accept expert opinions that disagree with him. For example, in this illuminating article, the author recounts an anecdote about an encounter between Bush and Congressman Tom Lantos during a roundtable on a peace plan for Israel:
I don't want resolve from my president. I don't want someone who will "hold to his view." I want someone who will accept the fact that he might not always be right.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
You provided an editorial piece by a member of Bush's administration and an article from the Republican mouthpiece Newsmax. Do you have anything that's unbiased. Maybe something that uses facts?
The peice is heavily biased, and if you can't see that, you're not living in this reality. It goes to lengths to be fair and scientific in gathering the facts about the beliefs of the Bush and Kerry backers, but then just "assumes" with no evidence shown that the worldview of the Kerry side is correct, and the worldview of the Bush side is incorrect. If it were that simple, it wouldn't be such a big deal. There are a lot of very intelligent people both here and abroad, who have a firm understanding of and a lot of experience with geopolitical issues, who believe that Bush is holding a more "correct" worldview than Kerry is.
11*43+456^2
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!
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.
But that's the point! With an appropriately chosen set of questions, you could demonstrate that NPR listeners were disproportionately likely to hold some particular misconceptions.
While this is true, you could engineer the questions, I think it would be hard to craft a set of questions that would cause the NPR/PBS crowd to underperform the FOX/CNN/MSNBC crowds, unless you ask about Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, and Britney Spears. Actually, I would love it if someone tried...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
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?
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...
...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.
> There is good news in Iraq, and most of it is ignored by our press. Iraq has a free press.
Tell that to the newspapers and television stations that have been shut down on account of their content.
> It has a new government with excellent support from the people.
Except for the ones that are trying to blow it up...
> Its new police and military are starting to vigourously attack the Al Queda members in the country.
Except for the ones that desert or defect...
> The economy is booming.
Mostly with C4 and mortar rounds...
> 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.
No he isn't. He's the kind who drops the ball on confronting our real enemies in order to pursue a war on someone he doesn't like.
It amazes me that anyone thinks Bush is our best bet for national security.
> John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat
What, if anything, do you base that claim on?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat
So what do you base that statement on? Do you base it on the time when, as his force travelled up the Dong Chung River, "all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less that fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lt. Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. This daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers."? Or shortly after than, when "the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area" and "with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy."? That's from his Silver Star citation, which adds, "The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission." No, wait. That would totally go against your statement. Hmm.
Maybe you base the statement on the time when, after being wounded in the arm by an exploding mine, and while "receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the riverbanks" he realized that a man had gone overboard. In response, he turned his boat around and "returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, and with disregard for his personal safety he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged boat to safety." That's from his Bronze Star citation, which ends with "Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism, and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." Oh, crap. That also totally contradicts your statement.
What do you base your statements on, anyway? Seriously, have you ever come across evidence of this that was not in the form of an absurd claim made by the Bush campaign? Just because Bush says John Kerry is weak and indecisive doesn't make it true. As Karl Rove always says, "Attack your opponent's strength, not his weakness.". So no wonder they want to paint Kerry this way: they know the opposite is true, and that it is one of this strengths. And in succeeding in convincing the public otherwise, they have greatly hurt his chances of being elected.
And please don't cite SBVT because we all know they're full of shit. (And again, right in line with Rove's strategy. And their funding came from Rove's good buddy Bob Perry. Hrm.)
And I'm really sorry to use Vietnam war references in my argument, because I really think this race has focused way too much on things that happened 30 years ago when they should have been focusing on today's issues. But, obviously, the above quotes are the ideal counter-argument to your ridiculous claim. He's been resolute and such in the senate too, but hearing about how he boldly broke with his party to support a balanced budget just doesn't have the same effect.
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.
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
Nope. But it is surprising and interesting (to me) how the Bush supporters don't perceive Bush's positions accurately. For examples, look at the numbers of people who think Bush supports participation in the Kyoto agreement or the world court. If it were all about ideology, I wouldn't expect these discrepancies.
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.
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.
> I think it's funny that we can capture scientists known to their fellows as "Dr. Germ" and "Chemical Ali" and somehow the "correct" story is that there not only were no WMDs in Iraq, but that they were never pursuing them to begin with.
The Bush Administration's greatest accomplishment has been convincing people like you that Iraq was an imminent threat to due to stuff they did back when they were our buddies.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
> CORRECTION. It shows Kerry voters are "more in tune" with the lies that the elite media is telling us about Iraq. Bush supporters include some 3/4 of those in the military, and they certainly understand what's happening on the ground in Iraq better than news reporters who cower in Bagdad hotels.
Guess that explains why some of that military feels like a simple fuel delivery job is a suicide mission, and why a whole stream of generals retiring after a tour in Iraq have been telling us that the whole thing has been AFU since day one.
> 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 Bush supporters know that he was our ally then, and also while using WMD on the Kurds and Iranians?
> 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?
How many Bush supporters know that the most recent report on the scandal had all the American crooks' names blacked out?
> 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.
I think this would be an excellent time to have a president who understands that not every war is a good war.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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!
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.
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.
The point here is not whether you oppose Islamo-fascism. Most of the most vehement critics of Islamo-Fascism also opposed the war in Iraq, because it played into the fascists hands. The argument is about strategy, not about the goal. And I am repeatedly astonished by the apparent incapacity of Bush supporters to distinguish between these.
This observation, shared by most of those critical of Bush and his supporters, is the reason we believe that Bush supporters have lost touch with reality. What we see is a rigid adherence to a single, poorly conceived, strategy. This strategy is like trying to perform brain surgery with a pick-axe. The major points of this strategy are:
1. Use of superpower style tactics against guerilla opponents--long range attacks, with large area of effect destructive capabilities--in other words, Shock and Awe. Shock and Awe, however, has high collateral damage, destroys infrastructure, and has very limited success against small mobile guerilla groups. In fact, this strategy is designed for fortified emplacements of mixed units, including tanks, artillery, and infantry, who are committed to holding a position. None of these conditions apply in Iraq. Ultimately, Saddam and the majority of his forces were killed or captured by ground troops, not by cluster bombs and long range strikes. This scorched earth strategy was also used in Vietnam. It didn't work there either.
2. An obsession with Iraq regardless of its connection to Political Islam. This obsession pre-dated 9/11, and 9/11 was only the pretext for for doing what elements of the Bush administration already wanted to do. In fact, Saddam Hussein, however vicious, was the one leader of an Arab country who had no ties to Political Islam, and who had always traditionally been despised by extremist Muslims. 9/11 made invasion of Iraq a lower priority, not a higher one, however much we may have despised Saddam Hussein.
3. The inability to determine between friend, foe, and neutral parties. Robert Fisk, a journalist who was in Iraq during the invasion, noted how American troops called any position not currently occupied by American troops enemy territory. This also underlies Shock and Awe, which had less effect on the Iraqi military and its political leaders than it did on Iraqi civilians. The result is that the Bush administration is firing blindly into the world, missing the target and making a lot of new enemies.
4. Poor comprehension of the enemy. There is a tendency to describe all opponents in the war as terrorists. In fact, actual terrorists of the Al Queda type may be quite rare. Instead, American troops are faced with a combination of criminal gangs, nationalist resistance, foreign agitators, and terrorists, with the majority probably being criminal gangs. The motivation and tactics of each of these groups is quite different, and strategies which work well against one type will actually give advantages to others. For example, diplomacy is best used against nationalists, who can be turned against foreign agitators, and criminals must be hit financially.
5. Predictability and rigidity. Bush is steadfast, no doubt about that--so steadfast that everyone knows what buttons to press and what he'll do when they're pressed. This provides the likes of Al Queda with the opportunity to play him, and to plan long in advance, even before the event that causes him to react. The terrorists are suicidal; they not only have no fear of retaliation, they are counting on it. Their goal is to provoke the most extreme form of retaliation possible, in the hopes that the Americans will offend enough people to gain sympathy for the terrorist cause. They have gotten exactly what they wanted. In fighting terrorism, the target must be the meme itself. Innocent casualties work to spread the meme, and must be avoided. Otherwise the terrorists will replace their numbers faster than they lose them, and the war can never be won.
Jesus told us to love our enemies. Sun Tzu said that we must know our enemies. In fact, they
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 3rd reich was a democracy. Hitler won the leadership by popular vote.
Hitler came into power by democratic elections, that's true. He was initially the head of a coaltion government. In the last free elections in March 1933 his party won 288 of the 647 seats in the parlament, which made them the strongest party. One of the main steps to gain full power was the so called enabling act. In order to ensure that this law was passed by the parliament, more than 100 MP from opposing parties (social democrats and communists) were jailed. Subsequently, all other parties were outlawed (Here is some kind of summary). I'd say, having all parties except the ruling one outlawed is a bit more than just an "undemocratic element". And the same goes for the total control of the media and the establishment of a police state were rights originaly garanteed by the constitution are only granted as long as the government sees fit to do so.
Reforming Germany after WWII maybe didn't mean introducing democracy for the first time, but it meant giving people trust in the system,since the only over real democracy in German history (the Weimarer Republic) was a failure and lead to the Nazis getting a sizeable amount of votes in 1933. But the 3rd Reich (once the nazis were done with transforming the state to their liking) was about as democratic as the Soviet Union.