1
   

Bush Voters Believe His Lies

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2004 07:26 pm
I saw the info in your header too Squinney - and I was wondering how accurate it was - thing is, it gels with other sources re the mid west folks enormous ignorance of the truth in relation to the faulty intelligence, WMD etc.

If true it is terrifying - but not, I would have thought, sadly, especially out of line re the norms of voter ignorance - anywhere?

Was there a similar analysis, eg, of the anti-Bush folk's mis-beliefs?

Hmm - i can go off and research that meself!
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2004 08:41 pm
The Daily Mis-Lead is a project of Moveon.org but they are not the source of the study. They are reporting (presumably enthusiastically) the results of a study that comes out of the University of Maryland. The title of this study is: "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters" Steven Kull principle investigator published 10/21/04.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

The study reports the results of a poll on the perceptions of both Bush and Kerry supporters on a variety of issues dealing with administration policies and positions. Particularly foreign policy issues and the War in Iraq. It concludes that Bush and Kerry supporters have widely if not wildly divergent views and understandings of the policies of the Bush administration and world opinion on the administrations actions in Iraq.

The study was a joint product of The Center for International Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) part of the University of Maryland's school for Public Policy and the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) a non-profit social science research organization. The polling was done by Knowledge Networks, a market research firm in Menlo Park California.

My personal opinion is that while the reported polling data may be accurate, the report is poorly written and confusing. That while the poll may reveal widely divergent views and perceptions by the public on the Bush administration and the war. The analysis and conclusions of the report, suggesting reasons for these divergent views, go beyond the published data and boarder on speculation.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2004 09:22 pm
Armyvet35 wrote:
they polled 900 bush and Kerry supporters in that poll... hmmm yes 900 represents many Smile


Cognitive dissonance in action?
0 Replies
 
bashtoreth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2004 10:07 pm
Re: Bush Voters Believe His Lies
squinney wrote:
Bush Supporters Misled


A new study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) shows that supporters of President Bush hold wildly inaccurate views about the world. For example, "a large majority [72 percent] of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."1 Most Bush supporters [57 percent] also believe that the recently released report by Charles Duelfer, the administration's hand-picked weapons inspector, concluded Iraq either had WMD or a major program for developing them.2 In fact, the report concluded "Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion" and the U.N. inspection regime had "curbed his ability to build or develop weapons."3

According to the study, 75 percent Bush supporters also believe "Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda."4 Most Bush supporters [55 percent] believe that was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission.5 In fact, the 9/11 commission concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq.6

Bush supporters also hold inaccurate views about world public opinion of the war in Iraq and a range of Bush's foreign policy positions.

Source



No wonder the two candidates are still neck-n-neck. Half or better of the voting population is still misinformed and eating up the lies Bush has been telling them.

I suppose a big reason for limiting Bush rally attendance was to prevent them from finding out the truth. Seems to have worked. What say you?


Well, Mr. O'Reilly, I'd say that's just par for the course with politicians in general--like Democrat deliberate untruths. Most people are misinformed because they believe everything "their" candidate says.

Everyone! Just don't be a "dittohead"! Do your own factfinding and then make a decision.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2004 10:08 pm
blatham wrote:
Armyvet35 wrote:
they polled 900 bush and Kerry supporters in that poll... hmmm yes 900 represents many Smile


Cognitive dissonance in action?


C'mon Blatham. If I were to post a poll that only used a sample of 900 people that agreed 75% of Democrats believed WMD's existed, it would be lambasted from here to the moon regarding sampling errors, small population sampling, poor methodology, etc...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 05:24 am
McG

There's a lovely piece from Kristof in today's NY Times (I've stolen my new signature from here) which seems quite relevant to me (eg...this peculiar datum...Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?hp

900 isn't an insignificant number and there is rather a lot of other polling and survey data which reflects the same sort of epistemological wierdnesses which are downright counter-intutitive, if not frightening.

I have to run this morning, but this is a subject of acute interest and I'll come back later tonight and yak.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 05:40 am
Hmmm - depends upon selection criteria, a lot - and, in fact - there is analysis of data from three polls - the latest was 968, earlier ones 798 and 959.

Subjects randomly selected from entire adult population - and then given internet access.

Here is info about them:

http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/

Looks ok to me so far - but I shall bow to any sampling experts amongst you!
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 07:27 am
Armyvet35 wrote:
Squinny...

that website is sponsored and supported by MOVEON.ORG


Good try and no thanks LOL


No, it's not! And now I see that has already been established. PIPA is a welll respected and non-partisan organization. See here is another case of cognitve dissonance.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 07:28 am
blatham wrote:
McG

There's a lovely piece from Kristof in today's NY Times (I've stolen my new signature from here) which seems quite relevant to me (eg...this peculiar datum...Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?hp

900 isn't an insignificant number and there is rather a lot of other polling and survey data which reflects the same sort of epistemological wierdnesses which are downright counter-intutitive, if not frightening.

I have to run this morning, but this is a subject of acute interest and I'll come back later tonight and yak.


Zogby only polls 1200, I believe.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 07:51 am
Bush supporters don't want to know the truth. If Bush himself went on television and exposed himself to the world they would still vote for him.
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 08:07 am
Those who think Saddam was not a threat, do not understand what the threat regarding Islamic Fundamentalist was around the world. Al-Queda is a "name" terrorist organizations go by several different names. That is the facts that get lost when the Bush-haters who say he "lied" don't seem to want to face. The world is dangerous, and Saddam in power was a threat to the world and the US. He was always at war with us. He NEVER abided by the ceasefire agreement after the 1st Gulf war and NEVER would have.. This is not something that began with GWB and will not end anytime shortly...
===========================
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/jul/joynerJul04.asp

While links between Saddam and al Qaeda are long established, evidence of Saddam's involvement in the 9-11 attacks has always been sketchy at best. The most compelling case has always rested on a meeting between 9-11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraqi case officer al-Ani. At least one expert went so far as to argue that Atta received $100,000 that "probably funded at least part of the September 11 operation[17]." The 9-11 Commission, as detailed in a separate report, "Outline of the 9-11 Plot," now believes that meeting never took place:

We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available-including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting-we do not believe that such a meeting occurred. The FBI's investigation places him in Virginia as of April
4, as evidenced by this bank surveillance camera shot of Atta withdrawing $8,000 from his account. Atta was back in Florida by April 11, if not before. Indeed, investigation has established that, on April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call Florida phone numbers from cell sites within Florida. We have seen no evidence that Atta ventured overseas again or re-entered the United States before July, when he traveled to Spain and back under his true name[18].

There is little credible evidence that Saddam directly funded the 9-11 attacks. Given that the United States has occupied Iraq for over a year and that our intelligence agencies have had nearly three years to uncover such evidence, it is quite likely that there was no such connection. Nonetheless, we know that Saddam funded Islamist terrorists. We know that his government had significant and repeated contact with al Qaeda during the 1990s. Still, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi recently told Tom Brokaw that he thinks otherwise:

Brokaw: I know that you and others like you are grateful for the liberation of Iraq. But can't you understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States?

Allawi: We know that this is an extension to what has happened in New York. And - the war have been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism.


Brokaw: Prime minister, I'm surprised that you would make the connection between 9-11 and the war in Iraq. The 9-11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaeda.


Allawi: No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaeda. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September - atrocities or not, I can't - vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists[19].

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently asserted that his intelligence service had warned the U.S. several times that Saddam has planned terror attacks on U.S. targets inside and outside the country[20]. The timing of the claim struck many as politically motivated and no mention has been made of it since.

Overall, evidence for cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda after the late 1990's is sketchier, with most pointing to Saddam's housing of Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as the most definitive link. Peter Bergen argues that the evidence that Zarqawi is much more likely a bin Laden rival than part of his network, making that basis rather dubious[21].

Whether al-Zarqawi is a member of al Qaeda or a rival faction is essentially a semantic debate. As terrorism expert Steve Emerson explains, the Islamist terrorist threat is singular; the particular name associated with a faction hardly matters:

The dream of a world under Islam has engendered Muslim dissidents everywhere in the world over the last two decades. Almost every Islamic country has its own militant faction, often two or three. The Hamas of Palestine, Hizballah of Lebanon, the Islamic Salvation Fron (FIS) and Armed Islamic Group (GIA) of Algeria, An-Nahda of Tunisia, Al Jihad and al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya of Egypt, Lashkar e-Tayyiba of Pakistan, and the Abu Sayyaf Group in the Philippines and the Holy Warriors in Chechnya-all share the same goal of an Islamic world, or, as they refer to it, a Khilafah[22]."

Jason Burke, writing in the May/June Foreign Policy, goes further, noting,

The Arabic word qaeda can be translated as a "base of operation" or "foundation," or alternatively as a "precept" or "method." Islamic militants always understood the term in the latter sense. In 1987, Abdullah Azzam, the leading ideologue for modern Sunni Muslim radical activists, called for al-qaeda al-sulbah (a vanguard of the strong). He envisaged men who, acting independently, would set an example for the rest of the Islamic world and thus galvanize the umma (global community of believers) against its oppressors. It was the FBI-during its investigation of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa-which dubbed the loosely linked group of activists that Osama bin Laden and his aides had formed as "al Qaeda." This decision was partly due to institutional conservatism and partly because the FBI had to apply conventional antiterrorism laws to an adversary that was in no sense a traditional terrorist or criminal organization.

It is not simply a matter of these groups having similar goals. A key component of Osama bin Laden's strategy was to refocus the energy of existing Islamist factions outward, against the US and other Western interests, instead of at their host governments, under the rationale "if the US is beheaded, the Arab Kingdoms will wither away[24]."

In the 1980s and most of the 1990s, the ambitions of Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist organization were overwhelmingly aimed against individual nations. The Egyptian groups wanted to overthrow the Sadat and Mubarak regimes, the Algerians wanted to destroy the secular government in Algiers, the Aghans wanted their country back from the Soviet and Afghan Communists, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and Abu Sayyaf wanted Mindanao for an independent Islamic homeland in the Philippines, and some of the Kashmiris wanted an independent nation, not an entity that would be folded into Pakistan. All the groups fought in the name of Allah . . . but their goals were nation specific; they did not conceive or claim, at this stage, that they were fighting to restore the freedom and dignity of the ummah, the borderless worldwide Muslim community. That would come later, after the defeat of what the Koran described as the "near enemy[25]."

The first groups he targeted, successfully, were al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) and Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) in Egypt. This coalition, which had its roots in the Afghan resistance, was multi-ethnic and went well beyond the Arab Middle East.

While bin Ladin was the lead signer of the 23 February 1998 fatwah,"Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," it was issued in the name of the World Islamic Front and co-signed by Ayman al-Zawahiri of EIJ; Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha of the IG; Mir Hamzah, of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlur Rahman of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh. The jihadist groups that Osama bin Laden has funded, trained, worked with, or is otherwise involved span the entire Muslim world, including Sunnis and Shia and several non-Arab states. Among the many parts of this loose alliance are: Algeria's Armed Islamic Group (GIA) and Islamic Salvation Front; Egypt's IG and EIJ; Mohammed's Army in Jordan; Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and MILF in the Philippines; Chechen insurgents in Russia; Pakistan's Harakat al-Mujahadin (HUM); Islamic Army of Aden (IAA) in Yemen; Jeemah Islamiyah (JI) in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Southern Philippines; Mujaheddin e Khalq (MeK)-which was founded in Iran but based in Iraq starting in 1987; United Front for the Liberation of Western Somalia (UF), itself consisting of several constitutent groups; and groups in Fiji, West Bengal, Malaya, Mauritania, Bangladesh, Jordan, and Eritrea[27].

Several of the more radical Palestinian separatist groups, including several that Saddam actively sponsored, were trained by al Qaeda in the 1990's, according to Anonymous:


All the events fit the pattern bin Laden has established for his war, all contribute to the same goal. In this content, by 1996 bin Laden's worldwide insurgency against the Crusaders was well under way. . . . By the middle of bin Laden's stay, the EIJ; the IG; HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement); the Palestine Islamic Jihad; the ANO; several Algerian, Libyan, and Tunisian groups; the Eritrean Islamic Jihad; groups of Ethiopian, Ugandan, and Somali Islamists; and Lebanese Hizballah-among others-were in Khartoum[28].

The New York Times' Thom Shanker recently reported that, "Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq[29]."

Obviously, Saddam was no Islamist. Saddam supported these groups, not because he believed in their cause-indeed, they would likely have turned on him at some point-but because doing so bolstered his standing in the Arab world and harmed his enemies, especially the Americans. Similarly, while he undoubtedly despised Saddam for his secularism and ribald lifestyle, bin Laden has a long history of cooperating with nominal Muslims--and even the hated Russians--to further his long-term aims. In war, the enemy of my enemy is often my friend.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 08:17 am
edgarblythe wrote:
Bush supporters don't want to know the truth. If Bush himself went on television and exposed himself to the world they would still vote for him.



I was raised Catholic, I so much wanted to believe all of that hokum. So for years, I struggled trying to believe it but finally my intellect took over and told me that it was just fantasy. The Bush supporters are in the same stage of denial that I was in.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 08:19 am
Apparently.
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:03 am
Harper wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Bush supporters don't want to know the truth. If Bush himself went on television and exposed himself to the world they would still vote for him.



I was raised Catholic, I so much wanted to believe all of that hokum. So for years, I struggled trying to believe it but finally my intellect took over and told me that it was just fantasy. The Bush supporters are in the same stage of denial that I was in.


Sorry the Catholic Church has somehow left you behind. That has nothing to do with why we support Bush..

If you want to talk about denial, it's the people who believe that the war in Iraq is somehow not connected to the war on terror. Until Bush went in office it was the Democrats that warned about how much of a threat Saddam was. I did not vote for Bush last time around and thought our country was doing everything it could to keep us safe. I was wrong. I realized it was hypocritical for the Dems to cry about how "Bush mislead, or lied".

If they wanted to run on their issues, or how the war was prosecuted, I could understand. It was the Dems that decided to divide this country by turning on what they all believed in. Clinton even enacted the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, have you ever seen it?

When you say "your intellect took over", what do you mean by that? You beleive now that Bush does not care about America or our security?

When you talk about your intellect, do you mean it's your religious beliefs that have changed, and you now don't believe? Just because Bush is religious doesn't mean anything other than he believes in God. I guess that is bad in your eyes now.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:07 am
Yep...the Bush voters believe 'em hook, line, and sinker.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:21 am
Got this from my sister today. Thought some of you might enjoy it.

It is from the New York Times OpEd page.



For years now, I've been wondering just how many blow-hard conservatives it will take to tumble onto their hypocritical faces (live the TV evangelists and their underage hookers, or Rush Limbaugh and his drug problem, or O'Reilly and his phone sex (yes, she could have hung up, but that's not the point, is it?) before those in the country who are not totally corrupted by "Christianity" get it.

I can't wait until the day we find out that Ann Coulter's favorite past time involves boy scouts and bondage, or that Ken Starr is one of those closet homosexuals that Frank Rich discusses. You know it's true. It's just a matter of time before their secrets are revealed. And whatever floats their boat is just fine---except that they insist on shoving their 'Morality" down the throats of others.

Oh well, time to go to the gym and work off the aggravation created by daily perusal of the papers. I'm considering swearing-off newspapers until after the elections are finalized. That will be sometime before 2008. I hope.



Frank Rich: The O'Reilly Factor for Lesbians
October 24, 2004
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:27 am
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 03:05 pm
Whatever. You might want to recheck your timeline. Thanks for the credit for the "literary masterpiece" but if you look again you'll see it was sourced.


Kerry arrived in the Senate in 1985. In early 1986 Kerry's office was contacted by a Vietnam vet who alleged that the support network for the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras (who were fighting against the socialist Sandinistas in power) was linked to drug traffickers. Kerry doubted that the Reagan Administration, obsessed with supporting the contras, would investigate such charges. He pushed for a Senate inquiry and a year later, as chairman of a Foreign Relations subcommittee, obtained approval to conduct a probe.

There's plenty of info that supports Kerry's leadership role as stated on page one.


"When banking regulators finally shut down BCCI in 1991, an estimated 250,000 creditors and depositors from forty countries were out billions of dollars." http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040315&c=2&s=corn


The BCCI Affair - A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations (United States Senate) by
Senator John Kerry and Senator Hank Brown
December 1992
102d Congress 2d Session Senate Print 102-140

Follow the Money - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 09:04:05