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."
Nice Story! (Score:4, Insightful)
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....
Bush supporters should be Kerry supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Faith based politics (Score:5, Insightful)
most of Bush's politics/decisions are about faith and not fact. Anybody who votes for him has
to share his worldview.
And strangely... (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, we are dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
> I don't see, however, how you can group all Bush supporters into a "stupid" group because of the attitudes of some.
We don't. We categorize them as stupid because they support Bush.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm...PIPA hardly compares to Bob Jones University. Please check out PIPA's about us page to see who they are funded by: http://www.pipa.org/about.html [pipa.org]. Yes, Ben and Jerry's is on there, but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology. It's not really fair to compare PIPA to a Christian-oriented college. More importantly, by making this claim of bias, you are attempting to discount the conclusion of the report--that many Bush supporters in the U.S. are sadly out of touch not only with what the rest of the world thinks about their leadership but also what the solid conclusions of experts have been on the subject of WMDs and Iraq. Please don't load this with bias that doesn't exist.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:1, Insightful)
The survey (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue isn't what article you can get published. Obviously you can get both published. The point is that if you publish two articles that say the opposite thing, one of them has to be more correct than the other.
In this case, it's absolutely more correct that Kerry supporters have got more going on in the brain-use department than Bush supporters. You can complain all you want, hypothesize all sorts of things, but you can't argue with facts.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think they're scared of talk.
George Bush speaks big and carries a soft stick.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:3, Insightful)
God told me that you can't prove a negative. Now prove he didn't.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
'With less then three weeks until the U.S. presidential election, President George Bush has received endorsements from two world leaders, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Austraslian [sic] Prime Minister John Howard.'
So now we're equating heads of state with states themselves?
Re:Faith based politics (Score:3, Insightful)
freedom does not get imposed from the point of a gun, from an occupying army.
scary times (Score:1, Insightful)
And of course the same is true for Kerry, in a different way. I believe the only reason he has any support is because he's Not George Bush.
When you turn on a talk show, it's just small sound bites repeated over and over again like mantras. I wish some of the interviewers would just cut the human-tape-player off and say "We've heard these talking points before. Don't you have anything new to say?". But if they did that, there'd be no way to fill up 24 hours of cable news.
It just makes me want to shake my head and hope for the future. Where are we headed??
This post is ... irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I don't *have* to agree, but I'll coneede the point.
And in counter, a NON-BIASED foundation might donate to them.
Re:The facts are biased. (Score:2, Insightful)
--trb
Re:Nice Story! (Score:1, Insightful)
George Bush speaks big and carries a soft stick.
---
Can you people please get your story straight? Which is it: Bush is all bluster and no action, or a reckless cowboy who can't wait to fire the guns and can't be bothered with talking?
Re:Faith based politics (Score:5, Insightful)
> We have a lot of things we have faith in. What do you believe in?
Faith != belief. Faith is belief without evidence.
Re:The facts are biased. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you say you pick and choose facts to support your beliefs, then there's a pretty good chance that you're not qualified to judge your own self awareness. (That comment, by the way, is a filter that I will overlay over any facts that you present that contradict my assertion.)
Just because two sets of facts can support two different conclusions doesn't mean either set of facts wrong. It means the world is a hell of a lot more complex than a couple of bullet points on a web page.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, the rest of the world understandably is distrustful of the US as the most powerful nation in the world. They want a weaker or less assertive superpower, or at least to have some control. Well tough. Our job is to look out for ourselves first, not to win some popularity contest. The world isn't a warm fuzzy place and countries take advantage of any weakness they can. Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration to what has happend there during the Bush administration for perfect evidence of that. Clinton and Bush both recognized the same problems in the world (Iran, Iraq, Noth Korea, Afghanistan) but one of them only talked big an the other acted. That's has an enormous impact in US negotiating power. It remains to be seen if Kerry will go back to Clinton's policies of letting the rest of the world walk all over us. Let's hope not.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:1, Insightful)
Iraq isn't the enemy, it is the battleground.
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
One can select a set of utterly truthful and verif (Score:3, Insightful)
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.")
Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, the study authors have their facts wrong. The 9/11 commission concluded ONLY that Iraq and Al Qaeda did not cooperate with regard to the 9/11 attacks. The commission DID CONCLUDE that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda in direct contradiction to the assertions of the makers of this study. Source: usa today [usatoday.com]. The primary link is so well known that it is getting rediculous to assert it doesn't exist: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Also, there were quantities of Sarin gas that were discovered in artillery shells. While this is not WMD on the scale predicted, it is enough to refute the absolutist position taken by this study that no WMD have been found in Iraq. Source: newsmax [newsmax.com].
Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
Except your example means nothing because there was no immediate threat.
Of coarse if Sadam had missiles in Cuba or Mexico pointed at us there would be no debate about the war. But he was just a failed despot in a failed state.
Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (Score:3, Insightful)
Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
The ACLU is as conservative an organization as you can find. All they want to do is maintain the freedoms put forth in the consititution. They don't care if you are on the right or on the left - if you a being denied your rights as a citizen they are one your side.
Reproductive choice? Since when did deciding if you want to have children or not become liberal?
Planned Parenthood? Not Liberal. %98 of their work involves women's health, STD prevention and education, and reproductive education.
Feminism? When did sexual equality become a "liberal" agenda item. I thought it was an ammendment to the constitution.
So... I guess your saying conservatism means giving up your rights and freedoms, losing control over your reproductive organs, and keeping females locked barefoot and pregant in the kitchen?
Um, no I don't think ANY of those organizations are "liberal" unless you mean protecting freedom... SO you are against freedom? wierd.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting aside minor considerations like the insanity of anihilating ten time the number of people killed in the twins, SQUARED; the fact that almost all of them are innocent; ruining the world economy (all this oil gone); possibly causing nuclear winter; fallout carried into Russia, Europe and India; and various other such pesky issues.
And if that's not enough - *Israel*? Why would you want to nuke Israel after the twins? It would have made more sense if you listed France. They also have tons of Muslems in the country. Come on, just between the two of us - you are itching for an excuse to nuke France. Admit it.
In short: You, sir, are a terrorist. Yours is exactly the same mindset used by the terrorists who killed hundreds of school children because "their people have been wronged" and they wanted to "fight back" their "just war".
Then again, I suppose any American deluded enough to call himself a "marxist hacker" isn't expected to be rational...
Re:Don't listen to NPR much, do ya'? (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
Until now international polls show an overwhelming tendency against Bush, but in favor of the american ppl. Such comments definitely do a lot to change that... But I suppose, since the US are the only nation to have ever actualy used nuclear weapons(not to open that can of worms, but the rest of the world definitely remebers the rather dubious circumstances), that constitutes kinda monopoly. So, to summarize you propose to kill millions of innocent ppl of arabic origin. There are words for ppl like you : racist and nazi. How strange, that correlates to the view an increasing part of the world holds towards american policy.
Oh and let me assure you, the rest of the world would happily welcome a new american isolationism, esspecially if that means no more pre-emptive strikes and no more military securing of oil contracts
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
If your speaking of their respective goveremnts, it is may be different.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:3, Insightful)
You know without those people actually thinking about things and figuring out how to solve problems, you know, those people "somewhere" that are "going to come up with a solution". Those people. They think about things, they look at problems and figure out how to solve them.
Having blind faith just makes you a sheep. Looking at reality and using your brain is what makes you a human being.
I believe in critical thinking, using ideals as guidelines but working with pragmatic reality. Ask Israel sometime how their determination is working as far as protecting them from terrorists. Ask yourself how you could possibly be more determined than an enemy who is willing to strap bombs to his chest just to hurt you a little bit. Are you THAT determined? If so, you've got problems.
There is another word for determination and faith in the face of all reason. It's called stupidity.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that why people get arrested for wearing anti-W t-shirts.
Is that why guys get reported to the FBI for speaking against this administration.
Republicans in general may believe in freedom. But thier current version of it is skewed towards facism.
There are a lot of things out there that the RIGHT is against that is necessary for the evolution of our race. One example is Stem-cells.
Another is the end of the hippocracy of these rightious scumbags who are guilty of exactly what they accuse everyone else of being [i.e. Rush, O'reilly, Cheney]. They lie to our faces and then proceed to commit attrocities. And the sheep suck it up like it was the gospel.
hAHAHA (Score:1, Insightful)
L-O-F-L
You say people are spinning the facts, then you point to a website that was *obviously* set up *TO SPIN* the facts and hell even make them up. Inflamatory domain name. Front page, poll numbers. Prima facie stuff.
My friend, you are one of those living in a fantasy world.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect the rest of the world is holding its breath and praying for John Kerry. They won't say so openly because (a) it would create a backlash to be seen as meddling in US politics, and (b) they need a good working relationship with the president. If you endorse Kerry and Bush gets re-elected, you may have trouble dealing with him.
Anyhow, that's my take on it as part. But what do I know? I'm part of the Reality Based Community.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is that he's stupid enough to be both- the end result of his "can't wait to fire the guns and can't be bothered with talking" strategy is our army is being wasted on an enemy that hasn't invaded anybody within the last decade, and we've got nothing left for the real threats of terrorist countries who have already gained nukes. Speak Big and Carry a Soft Stick- or in the case of an army already stretched way too thin, no stick at all....
Time for a Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah! Wait, what happened again? Oh yeah, the UN weapons inspectors installed under the Clinton administration were thrown out, and North Korea acquired nuclear weapons under the bush administration- which Bush has done absolutely nothing about.
Just one more piece of evidence showing that Bush supporters have a strained relationship with facts and the real world...
Proud member of the Reality Based Community
Re:Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
This poll has nothing to do with "worldview," (aka "opinions")- this has to do with knowledge of "facts" (aka "evidence.)
Assertion: Bush et al said Iraq had serious stores of WMD, lots of nasty gas, biological agents, etc.
Fact: The non-partisan (e.g. equal representation of Dems and Repubs) 9/11 committee found that there was no WMD. The US military weapons inspectors reported they have not found any.
Question: Where are the WMD, and why do 75% of Bush supporters thing we found WMD or Iraq had them? Where is the PROOF?
Assertion: Bush et al said (or strongly implied repeatedly) that Iraq had significant connections to Al Qaeda and thus 9/11.
Facts: Again, the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of this at all.
Question: Why do 75% of Bush supporters think Iraq was involved?
I would love for you to find just 1 fact to prove both of these assertions. I don't want conjecture or speculation, I want stuff that has passed review by people.
The sad matter is, people are misdirecting their anger over 9/11. I lost a good family friend in the WTC. I was pissed. I wanted to go after Al Qaeda, and the people who did this. Bush has exploited 9/11 to bring his "worldview" to the world- and he has ruined this country in the process.
What if Clinton had attacked a country based upon "speculation?" How quickly before he was impeached? It nauseates me that people cannot look past their "opinions" and "gut instincts" to see the truth, based in facts. Going to war should be a last resort, and should only be done with incontrovertible proof and facts.
Just because I don't care... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: A Bush supporter speaks (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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?
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The facts are biased. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll just say this:
The assertion on the very first page that 80,000 Iraqi children are alive because of the U.S. invasion is an excellent indicator of the bizarre reasoning and freakish assumptions the author of the site makes.
And I'm not even a democrat.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Kerry isn't advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq for two reasons:
1) He knows that he'll never get elected if he advocates such a position (he'll lose the moderate voters; he's got to win some of the states in the middle of the country) and
2) He knows that leaving Iraq now is an invitation for disaster and not just in the Middle East. (Korea is watching; El Queso is watching.)
The sad fact is that every plan Kerry's put forward so far is EXACTLY the plan that's already being executed. The only difference Kerry seems to be offering is that he can magically "do it better."
Worse, Kerry has had 19 months now and lots of additional evidence to decide if and how he would have gone to war with Iraq. He still can't make up his mind on either subject even with the added time and information. It's pretty darn easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and Kerry still can't offer a plan for Iraq that's substantially different from what's already being done.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Japan and Germany were the aggressors.
Bush has made the US the aggressors in Iraq.
And before you say that the 9/11 terrorists were the aggressors, there's no proven link between Iraq and Bin Laden.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Please. Him and what army? Literally: which military is he going to use? The US is busy with Afghanistan and has its hands full in Iraq. It's hard for us to do anything, and they know it: this is why Iran has announced a new foreign policy doctrine called "Screw you guys, we'll develop nukes if we want to". Of course, if we had more ALLIES, we might be able to spare some people. Even so, you've got to look at the logistics.
Going to war is like a camping trip (some people might argue that it's different because on a camping trip you don't use guns or kill things, but that depends on who you go with): you gotta get equipment, check it out and make sure it works, pack it; then you've got to plan your routes and figure out how everyone's going to get to where you're going camping, who rides in what vehicle, and how they're getting back, and when all this can happen. After you're done, you've gotta reinspect equipment, repair/replace it, and get it set up to go camping again... same deal with deploying tanks and soforth, only moreso. After a war like Iraq, it takes a lot of time to get ready for the next war. It will probably be another few years before the United States is ready for a major offensive. There's an excellent discussion of this at http://slate.msn.com/id/2099408 [msn.com], with the pithy quote: "Amateurs study tactics-professionals study logistics". Of course, George W. seems to study neither tactics nor logistics.
There's still one more problem: are the citizens of the US prepared for another war? In the face of mounting costs and casualties, alongside declining belief in the war's rationale, support for Iraq is drying up. America isn't ready for another war now- and may not be for a long time. Now, Bush and his supporters may not pay attention to this type of stuff (it's part of that whole annoying "reality" thing, after all), but you can bet your ass that Iranian intelligence does.
This is another way Bush screwed up: it may be that when we actually do need to go to war, next time we may not be ready.
-Proud member of the Reality Based Community-
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
He was reckless in invading Iraq.
But the Iraq invasion was easy. That country was completely demoralized from 12 years of bombings, to say nothing of the Iran/Iraq war beforehand.
But he has no follow-through.
He had no plan about what to do with Iraq after the invasion, to say nothing of an exit strategy.
He really should have considered the words of his father. [snopes.com]
Re:Once again... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
stupidity isn't the issue (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:The facts are biased. (Score:3, Insightful)
Polls show 75% of Iraqis want a democracy.
Wow!
That's quite a shocking statistic!
I thought that everyone in the middle east hated Democracy just like they hate Freedom.
It is really great that they want democracy.
Too bad that instead they are going to get another puppet dictator just like Saddam Hussein.
(Insert Maniacal Laughter Here)
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
Whenever North Korea got weapons- which is hard to know, them being a paranoid, secretive communist state and all- the point stands: nuclear proliferation has been worse under the Bush administration, which has sought to disarm those countries which don't have nuclear weapons (Iraq) while letting those that do promote proliferation (Iran, North Korea, and especially Pakistan) continue on their path.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
Its not stupidity. Its the fact that he's a doer.
Anyone who undertakes the responsibility to do something is going to create the opportunity for enemies. Its far too easy to sit back and criticize a doer, as there's plenty of opportunity for second-guessing any decisions made, even the right ones.
Being a do-nothing is the hallmark of any career politician.
A do-nothing like Clinton, who found it difficult to do anything without a public opinion poll, had relatively few criticisms of his foreign or domestic policy while in office. Of course, his morals got him into trouble time and again.
And, Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 20 years, survives by not doing anything worthwhile (except the Iran-Contra thing), and thereby not creating opportunities for his enemies.
I'd much rather have a doer working for me. Do-nothing career politicians make me ill.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
But quite frankly, I find your attitude all to common among liberals. This relative of yours basically said that he doesn't agree with your choice, but respects the fact that you made it intelligently. And you came back with your oh so insightful retort insinuating that only idiots would vote for Bush. Since he was probably planning on voting for Bush, I'm sure he didn't appreciate your insult. Are you really so surprised the conversation ended quickly after that? Couldn't you at least try to be pleasant with your relatives?
Personally, I find myself more on the Republican side of things quite often (though I'm not voting for Bush this November), so maybe it's just my perspective, but it seems like conservatives are more likely to respect other people's opinions while liberals tend to insult and denigrate people who don't agree with them. Now I'm sure there are probably large groups of counter-examples to this generalization, but I'm also sure your relative is now another conservative with another example of a condescending liberal.
What world do you live in? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you missed the massive protests? I know I didn't. I was one of those protesting.
Re: Did Iraq have WMDs? (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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.
Re: Kerry--Worse than Carter (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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.
ACLU (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, making things stable so you won't have to stay indefinitely is the right thing to do. Bush hasn't done squat to actually stabilize Iraq, he's just keeping the occupation at some kind of status quo with more or less daily insurgent attacks. If you want to call that stable, fine. It shouldn't have to take five+ years to overthrow a hated dictator and free his people. If it does, you're doing something very wrong. Just look at how fast eastern Europe adapted to not having the big red bear breathing down their backs.
I'm not saying Clinton was the best president ever (he would rank above average in my book for the last 50 years with FDR and Ike tied for first, Kennedy coming in on second place with Reagan and Clinton tied for third and the rest of the anonymous vision-less admins (Ford, Johnson, Carter and Poppy Bush) in a below-average pool) but Bush is currently sharing the bottom position in that league with Nixon. Carter is probably the best ex-president ever, though. :-)
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'd like for no Americans to die at all. And no Iraqis, Somalians, Afghanis, Brits, Martians, Rwandans or Zimbabwean farmers either. I'm not really sure how you could have arrived at your conclusion there, but maybe it's part of that alternate reality field that Karl Rove is projecting?
I do understand that sometimes eggs need to be cracked to make omelets, but there are very good reasons for putting the UNSEC in charge of allowing forceful invasions of sovereign nations. It's to keep the Chinese out of Taiwan. It's to keep the Germans out of Poland and the Russians out of Latvia. And it's to keep the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
It should also be to keep the Americans out of Iraq and Israelis out of Palestine, but you seem to have your own little addendum to the rulebook that says "Applies to anyone that doesn't hear voices from God".
You elect a president that listens to the congress and the rest of the world and the rest of the world will support the USA. Easy as that. Elect a president that won't listen to anyone except the voices in his head and the whole world has a problem.
The US is currently around 5% of the population of the world. Half of those vote and half again vote for Bush. Is it fair that a little over one percent of the population gets to decide one of the most important issues in the world today? Is it strange that we're watching the election, hoping it won't turn into a selection again? Is it strange that we want to live in stability and peace instead of living in fear, knowing there's a madman in the White House with his finger on the big red button?
Do the rest of the world a favor for once - vote against Bush.
Here's the real definition. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're wrong about that. You're confusing conservatives with neocons which is what you are.
A real conservative believes in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, believes that the truth will set you free, and that intelligence thrives in the midst of discussion and dissent. I could very easily see a conservative institution giving grants to those organizations out of fairness and to encourage alternate points of view. A true conservative would not seek to perpetuate their own beliefs by funneling money only to organziations that printed what they wanted to hear. That is the Bush administration way of doing business, and I'd argue they are an affront to true conservatives.
It's the necons who want to silence oppostion in America, not conservatives. I think it just shows how little you know about what being conservative really means.
Re:In tune != grasp of reality? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Too Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting how different we see these things... I see it as a way to rein in the comboys and add some other countries to do the bleeding. Since the US will go in for her own reasons, I'd like to add Swedes, Brits, Germans, Pakistanis or whoever do the peace-keeping force to a LARGER extent. Case in point: I'd have wanted the US to hold off the invasion of Iraq until MORE countries could either see the evidence for WMDs and be persuaded to help (actually creating a real coalition in the process instead of the current small gang of thugs) OR point out that there was no evidence and get Bush to call it off completely. I am not, in any way, advocating that the rest of the world should send Americans to die for our reasons. I'm simply saying that if there are compelling reasons to use military force against a nation-state, this should be the responsibility of the rest of the world with the US as a strong participant, it should NOT be a matter of the US only doing all the heavy lifting.
And we do have a checks and balances system; it's called Congress. They authorized the war.
No, they authorized Bush to authorize the war. It was a cop-out. They didn't take their responsibility to check the facts first, they just assumed Bush had done his homework (which it turns out, he hadn't) and wrote him a blank check.
Oh, and the UN didn't really keep Iraq out of Kuwait did it?
Yes, it did. President George Herbert Walker Bush would not have ousted the Iraqis from Kuwait without proper authorization from the UN Security Council. He would not have done it with US troops alone simply because doing so would have been in violation of the rules and Poppy Bush was big on rules. Too bad he was too busy to raise his kids...
And when the UN finally gets around to admitting they can't ignore the genocide in Dafur, guess who'll be called out to fix the problem? Yup that'll be US money and US blood on the ground over there.
Now I know you're delusional.
1. The UN has been sounding the alarm bells over Sudan in general and Darfur in particular for years, but it's just recently that anyone has bothered to check it out, with the US one of the last in line to acknowledge there's a problem.
2. The US has been constantly behind on her payments to the UN for the last 20 years or more (and yes, I do remember that) so don't give me that "US money" bit, you cheap bastard. The US is one of the cheapest nations on earth when it comes to giving aid per capita.
Why don't you just stay at home and play with your money and leave the rest of us the fuck alone? Please? Pretty please?