Polls show Americans are 'confused'

Cluelessness tends to be an equal-opportunity character trait. Would you be surprised to find it in all groups, Acquiunk?

No, given the transparency of the Bush administrations defence I suspect that cluelessness is most likely willful disregard of the evidence. I would expect it to concentrate along the lines the Bush's core support.

Actually, I suspect it has more to do with absolutely zero exposure to any news source, regardless of quality. To accuse all of willful ignorance is a tad harsh, I think: ignorance is often come by quite honestly.

And I'd also echo the comments of fbaezer and others that it has nothing to do with political affiliation, but rather a complete lack of political engagement.

Right now, in my life, I think myself woefully underinformed, but I talk to, say, my coworkers, and find that I've read far more than they have -- and many of these folks do vote, as Scrat noted with dismay.

I'm not sure the evidence supports that assumption. I think anyone who is fully in Bush's court on this would--by definition--be spouting the Bush line. Well, the "Bush line" has never suggested for a second that chemical or biological weapons were used in this war, nor have they suggested that weapons have been found--beyond some banned missiles and the mobile (fill in the blank) labs, the intended use of which is being hotly disputed.

No, I think it is clear that these are people who aren't paying close attention to the issues. I just wonder how they tend to vote.

Two ways, in my experience: for the party of their parents, or for the front-runner.

Heck, every nerd in the seventh grade probably has some sort of lab somewhere. Are we gonna haul them all in as potential school bombers, Scrat?

I think there is another way to look at this. Is "being informed" all that big a thing?

Consider this:

Some "informed voters" voted for George Dubya Bush.

Some "informed voters" will actually vote for his re-election.

That certainly doesn't say all that much for being informed.

Even I consider that outlook cynical, Frank, and that takes some doing...

No. Why? Do you think we should?

It's a rhetorical question, Scrat. You know what those are, yes?

Okay, P. I stand chastized. But....

Perhaps patiodog meant it as a compliment, Frank...

Half and half, anyway. I tend to expect the worst from the human species, but hope for, well, something slightly better than abysmal...

I know a number of people who say, "yeah, we can't find WMD, but the Saddam regime was horrid" (it was). Or "the tax cuts are a bad idea but I need the money" (so do I). My point is that in the face of admitted malfeasance many people are still going along with Bush and accepting his justifications. I think this is some of the same attitude that got Clinton through his impeachment. Most people I know would not engage in or want their daughter to engage in the kinds of activities that came out in the impeachment hearings. But they liked Clinton for other reasons and chose to ignore the behavior. Bush and his political advisors are not stupid and I suspect they are successfully tapping into that attitude.

That is very different, though, than people just being flatly ignorant of what the facts are, even as reported by a fickle media. There's a big step down from, "Well, maybe they haven't found any WMDs, but everyone's better of without Saddam around" to "They've found WMDs and chemical weapons were used in this war." One at least shows some awareness of current events; the other does not.

Not really. Once people have adopted a position they will selectively process information about that position. There have been numerous new articles and reports that WMD have been found, later to be retracted (Fox is particularly bad at this). People simple remember the original announcement because it fits with their preconceived notion of events and ignore any dissonant information. This is called reaching closure and my observation is that the Bush political/publicity machine has been working night and day to facilitate this attitude.

I agree with Acquiunk there. I think Fox and Bush are very well aware of the power of the loud claim, followed by the soft retraction...

Fair 'nough; I've been thinking in terms of the lowest common denominator -- the person who has literally not watched or read any news on the subject and only "knows" what's been gleaned from immediate acquaintances -- that is, the folks who have trouble finding North America on a map.

It's just over there, next to Oztralia, right?

Close enough to piss on it...