New Report: Majority of Bush Supporters are as clueless as he is.

[skymiles 3]

www.pipa.org

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program, Supported al Qaeda

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

[markd_nscr986 0]

Yeah......Right........whatever![crazy

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[BikerBabe 0]

An email from a friend about this report/article. He explains it much better than I could...

Quote

Asked what most experts believe to be the case, 60% of Bush supporters assume that most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Only 21% of Kerry supporters believe this to be the case. Asked in August what the 9/11 Commission had concluded, 55% of Bush supporters said that it had concluded that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Twenty-seven percent of Kerry supporters assumed this to be the case.

Similar spreads are seen on the Duelfer report. Interestingly, both sides (close to 80% of each) believe the Bush administration is saying that Iraq had WMD and direct, cooperative ties to al-Qaida. Which is actually true. Bush supporters just take it on faith, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This, I think, is the direct result of the niche broadcasting that has emerged over the last decade or so. People listen to biased news that tells them what they want to hear, and perceive "facts" as what their side's spinmeisters tell them they are. They distrust traditional media to such an extent that everything is now subjective. Or, more accurately, what you read/hear is the facts, and everything that contradicts is media distortions. The British have had this system for a long time, I wonder how their numbers would look.

But I also think the mainstream press has partly played into the Bush administration's propaganda enterprise, because they refuse to call people like Cheney liars when they make claims like "Iraq had WMD immediately before we invaded" and "Were they involved in 9-11? Maybe, we just don't know." They're so desperate to avoid the appearance of bias that instead of actually fact-checking statements, they'll be "balanced" and add a quote from someone with a dissenting view, as if both views are equally valid, and there's no possible way they could actually, say, look up the 9-11 Commission Report, or the Duelfer Report, and find the actual answer.

Michael Kinsley said this best:

Quote

The biggest problem is -- and I don't know what the solution is, so it's not a criticism, as much as it is a puzzle -- is that the conventions of objectivity make it very difficult to say that something is a lie. And they require balance, which is often just not justified by reality. The classic thing is the Swift Boats. If you follow what all the papers say, they inch close to saying what they really think by saying, "it's controversial," or "many have challenged it," euphemisms like that. And then they always need to pair it with something else. "Candidate X murdered three people at a rally yesterday, and candidate Y sneezed without using a Kleenex."

So Bush can say "The sky is green," and it will get reported as "President Bush today announced that the sky is green. This view was immediately renounced by the Kerry campaign, which issued a press release stating that the sky is, in fact, blue, except at night, when it is black with twinkly white bits, or possibly when it is overcast, when the sky has varying shades of gray, possibly also including blue." And then Ann Coulter will decide that anyone who thinks the sky is not green is a traitor, and should be in prison, or better yet, executed. And Michael Moore will release a movie, alleging that the Bush administration, in its ties with the Saudis, is attempting to dismantle regulations on copper-based gas emissions, and change the color of the sky.

Is there any way for this to improve? I find it very disturbing.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kallend 2,027]

One is led to wonder what the Bush supporters who don't believe the Bush propaganda machine must be thinking. They are even MORE clueless for continuing to support him.

I am truly surprised that anyone actually admits to supporting Bush since it's like an admission of cluelessness. (I can see that purely selfish motives might lead some to be closet supporters).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[markd_nscr986 0]

***I am truly surprised that anyone actually admits to supporting Bush since it's like an admission of cluelessness.

I am just as amazed that anyone would support a traitor like Kerry.On top of that,he has such an excellent work ethic,lets see.....5 bills through the senate in......20 YEARS??????

I think Koko could top that without breaking a sweat!

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

One is led to wonder what the Bush supporters who don't believe the Bush propaganda machine must be thinking.

That's easy, I'll be glad to tell you:

"At least Bush isn't Kerry, the most two faced, slippery, and directionless presidential candidate in the history of the universe".

. . =(_8^(1)

[badenhop 0]

Okay, I'll bite.
I am a Bush supporter.
Clueless? I am not.
Nobody is perfect.
My opinion is that Bush is the best candidate.

==================================

I've got all I need, Jesus and gravity. Dolly Parton

http://www.AveryBadenhop.com

[skymiles 3]

Quote

***
I am just as amazed that anyone would support a traitor like Kerry.On top of that,he has such an excellent work ethic,lets see.....5 bills through the senate in......20 YEARS??????

Thank you for making my point.

Phil

[skymiles 3]

Quote

Quote

"At least Bush isn't Kerry, the most two faced, slippery, and directionless presidential candidate in the history of the universe".

Again, thank you for making my point.

Phil

• Quote

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Again, thank you for making my point.

My pleasure. You might want to try making your own though -- it'll be much more effective.

. . =(_8^(1)

[markd_nscr986 0]

Quote

Thank you for making my point.


No,thank you for making my point.......for when you are presented with "hard fact" you choose to ignore it .But given the polls bias and your willingness to swallow Kerry propaganda,I can only surmise that Kerry's supporters leave a lot to be desired....perhaps Nader's people are more on the ball.

to check out the 5 bills Kerry has to show for 20 years of hard work

http://www.factcheck.org

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

• Quote

[pajarito 0]

Quote

One is led to wonder what the Bush supporters who don't believe the Bush propaganda machine must be thinking. They are even MORE clueless for continuing to support him.

I am truly surprised that anyone actually admits to supporting Bush since it's like an admission of cluelessness. (I can see that purely selfish motives might lead some to be closet supporters).

I guess you guys are just in that superior, intellectual, elitist, upper class of people. The rest of us poor ole boys and girls must just have a hard enough time gathering enough sense to walk around every day. I guess over half of the voting population in the US is just "clueless." Yeah, that's logical thinking...

[InflightSupv 0]

You know one thing that I just don't get--When it was time for war, it was almost a unamious vote for war from Congress, but when we look back, it is Bush's fault that we were duped. Why isn't someone going after the idiot intelligence "experts" that really was at fault. As far as WMD, I look at motive, opportunity and availability. Sadam had them all. He has used gases before, so it is very reasonable to assume that he has them still. They are still digging things out of the desert, like mig29's and things that were supposedly not there either.

[billvon 2,991]

>it was almost a unamious vote for war from Congress . . .

No one voted for war. They voted to support the president's use of force if he thought it necessary. Sorta like giving a cop the right to use deadly force if he thinks it is warranted; it's still his fault if he abuses that power. Blaming congress for giving him the power is like blaming Smith and Wesson, or the police commissioner, for a bad decision by a cop.

>As far as WMD, I look at motive, opportunity and availability. Sadam had
> them all.

Yeah, but he didn't have the WMD's, which was the reason we claimed we went to war. We screwed up. Now, everyone makes mistakes; the right thing to do is admit we made them and move on. Bush cannot do that. During the last debate, someone asked him the three biggest mistake hes made as president, and he said it was people he appointed who screwed up. Not the war, not the complete failure of our intelligence apparatus, not overlooking a memo that said Bin Laden was determined to strike the US - the only thing he could think he did wrong was to trust bad people.

What does that say to me? He's going to make exactly the same mistake again. Why wouldn't he? In his mind, he made no mistakes - and therefore he has absolutely no reason to improve on anything.

[TheAnvil 0]

Odd...I think similarly about supporters of sKerry...

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Thank you for making my point.


No,thank you for making my point.......for when you are presented with "hard fact" you choose to ignore it .But given the polls bias and your willingness to swallow Kerry propaganda,I can only surmise that Kerry's supporters leave a lot to be desired....perhaps Nader's people are more on the ball.

to check out the 5 bills Kerry has to show for 20 years of hard work

http://www.factcheck.org

Thank you guys for making my point. Kerry is an overachiever compared to Bush, who spent 20 years spending the inheritance running businesses into the ground.

So tell me, do you believe the Bush liespropaganda, or do you support Bush despite the falsehoods, broken promises and misdirection?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Kennedy 0]

Thank you guys for making my point. Bush is an overacheiver compared to Kerry, who spent 20 years spending the divorce settlement running businesses into the ground.

So tell me, do you believe the Kerry liespropaganda, or do you support Kerry despite the falsehoods, broken promises and misdirection?

---

Boy, wasn't thatproductive Kallend?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

No one voted for war. They voted to support the president's use of force if he thought it necessary.

Bill, I call bullshit. While the bill itself didn't say - "A vote to go to war tomorrow", every single person who voted knew that that's what it meant. It meant that when it came up during the first Gulf war, and it meant that this time. They knew exactly what they were voting on and any Congressman who claims otherwise is either a liar or an idiot.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Thank you guys for making my point. Bush is an overacheiver compared to Kerry, who spent 20 years spending the divorce settlement running businesses into the ground.

So tell me, do you believe the Kerry liespropaganda, or do you support Kerry despite the falsehoods, broken promises and misdirection?

---

Boy, wasn't thatproductive Kallend?

Honestly? I pick Kerry because I think he will do less damage over the next four years to the country I love. It's that simple.

It's too bad that's the criteria I have to use. I genuinely wish Bush had done a better job.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[crwmike 0]

Quote

Quote

One is led to wonder what the Bush supporters who don't believe the Bush propaganda machine must be thinking. They are even MORE clueless for continuing to support him.

I am truly surprised that anyone actually admits to supporting Bush since it's like an admission of cluelessness. (I can see that purely selfish motives might lead some to be closet supporters).

I guess you guys are just in that superior, intellectual, elitist, upper class of people. The rest of us poor ole boys and girls must just have a hard enough time gathering enough sense to walk around every day. I guess over half of the voting population in the US is just "clueless." Yeah, that's logical thinking...

Nah, it's just that many people are at a different place on the tribal evolutionary chain. Afraid and angry? The need to hurt and dominate is millions of years old in our history and remains a strong force. No doubt it had (has?) it's place in the survival of the tribe.

Now, there isn't any doubt that is happening here. The question is, is it still a survival characteristic ...or one that leads to destruction? I honestly don't know. I know I choose not to live that way. I can't see the species surviving if we do not evolve past it. It worked well when the damage was limited to teeth and crude weapons. The damage potential is a bit more extensive now.

I just know that there are many people who are resorting to what worked when the species was young. I think it's time as a people to grow past that.

Peace on ya,

Michael

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I guess over half of the voting population in the US is just "clueless." Yeah, that's logical thinking...

Excellent diagnosis of the problem, Pajarito.

Half the US population has IQ of 98 or less, according to "IQ and the Wealth of Nations".

President Eisenhower is supposed to have been horrified when told that half the population had below average intelligence. The popularity of reality TV makes it pretty obvious to us now, but reality TV wasn't around in Ike's time to give him the hint.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>While the bill itself didn't say - "A vote to go to war tomorrow", every
> single person who voted knew that that's what it meant.

Unfortunately, congressmen must vote for what a bill says and not what they imagine it might mean. Most people who sign things understand this. Would you sign a document that said "I agree to pay $200 a month for a service" if the salesman said they wouldn't really charge you that much?

>They knew exactly what they were voting on and any Congressman
> who claims otherwise is either a liar or an idiot.

And if you could slam Kerry for voting for a bill that said "I support the war" but really meant "push for a peaceful solution" your reply would be "I don't care what people _thought_ it meant - any congressman who can't read is a liar or an idiot."

[Skyrad 0]

Not much to choose from. Democracy? Bollocks, its all about the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Unfortunately, congressmen must vote for what a bill says and not what they imagine it might mean. Most people who sign things understand this. Would you sign a document that said "I agree to pay $200 a month for a service" if the salesman said they wouldn't really charge you that much?

So you agree Kerry should have voted no? But instead he voted yes, wanting his yes vote to mean somethin other than what the resolution said. Like believing a contract says something other than what it says.

Quote

And if you could slam Kerry for voting for a bill that said "I support the war" but really meant "push for a peaceful solution"

How did it (really meant 'push for a peaceful solution')? How does Kerry come to the conclusion that it meant something other than what was written? Just because he wanted it to?

He should have voted no, just like in '91.

Kerry isn't an idiot, but he thinks we are.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Kerry isn't an idiot, but he thinks we are.

Uh - oh, back to that again.

What fraction of the US electorate has below average intelligence?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.