Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities 698
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."
A very similar study regarding Fox News watchers (Score:5, Informative)
"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 [truthout.org]
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.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nice Story! (Score:4, Informative)
--trb
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Informative)
Good grief! If the Ford Foundation isn't liberal in your opinion, then what is?
According to the recent grants list [fordfound.org] on their website, they've recently donated to:
Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.
Re:This article is... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Give me a break (Score:1, Informative)
After the vote, we find out the document was a horrible fake (similar to the document Dan Rather had). We also find out that the aluminum tubes match the design for rockets Iraq previously has used, and that they deform within a few hours if used as centrifuges (keep in mind they must be run for years to enrich uranium).
That's what Kerry is objecting to. The information used to justify the war was known to be false, but was presented as being true.
Also remember that the vote to authorize the use of force was as a means of last resort. The UN Inspectors kept saying we need more time, which Bush ignored. That's very clearly not using force as a last resort.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:2, Informative)
Does the public education system in this country even teach history any longer? EnderWiggnz isn't insighful, he's embarrassingly ignorant.
Hint to moderators
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Faith based politics (Score:1, Informative)
Not just Iran -- al Qaeda too! (Score:5, Informative)
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 [satanforbush.com] that we might want to be concerned with.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=fa cts [thenation.com]
100 Facts and 1 Opinion
by JUDD LEGUM
[from the November 8, 2004 issue]
Click here [thenation.com] to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.
IRAQ
1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.
Source: American Progress [americanprogress.org]
2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.
Sources: Fox News [foxnews.com], The Boston Globe [boston.com]
3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.
Source: PBS [pbs.org]
4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.
Source: The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.
Source: globalsecurity.org [globalsecurity.org]
6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.
Source: Yahoo News [yahoo.com]
7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.
Source: MSNBC [msn.com] , 9-11 Commission [9-11commission.gov]
8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.
Source: New York Times [nytimes.com]
9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.
Source: USA Today [usatoday.com]
10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa
Re:Give me a break (Score:3, Informative)
I suggest you browse some of the questions. Many of them are quite objective. Did the 9/11 Commission find a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Does Bush support participation in the Kyoto agreement or the world court? These don't depend on the study makers' views.
I don't read any value judgement into that. Right or wrong, understanding the positions of your allies and your enemies can only be helpful. There's nothing wrong with acting unilaterally to protect your interests. Even so, doing so ignorant of how your actions are perceived is short-sighted.
Note, I'm not saying that the US did so with regard to Iraq. There are certainly many, many outside the US who were against it. How many I don't know. Maybe there were many allies who were quietly thrilled that we took out Saddam. Having a gauge on this is valuable information when choosing a strategy. Barring that, realizing that you don't know the extent of the support and the opposition is better than believing everyone is behind you.
I'm a Kerry supporter, but I think he blew it (as did most of my representatives) by authorizing the President to use force to "disarm" Iraq. I believed *at the time* that the case for WMDs was weak and that the connections to al Qaeda were nonexistant. Furthermore, it wasn't clear how invading Iraq and throwing it into chaos would have made searching for the weapons any easier. Despite earlier obstinance from Saddam, at the time of the authorization, the UN inspectors were getting virtually unfettered access in their search. WMDs were a poor excuse for invading. Kerry's judgement on that was just as bad as Bush's. But Bush had promised a stronger coallition and an exit strategy. Kerry's lapse in judgment was in believing the President's promise.
No, it was not. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (Score:2, Informative)
Uh...
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're, objectively and factually, completely wrong [iranchamber.com].
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.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Japan and Germany (Score:3, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.