»New poll proves that Bush supporters have little clue«
|
|||
 It's worrying to see how little Bush supporters know. A new poll proves that they live in a world fabricated by Bush spins and Fox News having little clue about the truth and the world outside the US. A fresh poll from the day before yesterday (= a few more days before the US 2004 election) BUSH SUPPORTERS MISLED
A new study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) shows that supporters of President Bush hold wildly inaccurate views about the world. For example, "a large majority [72%] of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." Most Bush supporters [57%] also believe that the recently released report by Charles Duelfer, the administration's hand-picked weapons inspector, concluded Iraq either had WMD or a major program for developing them. In fact, the report concluded "Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion" and the U.N. inspection regime had "curbed his ability to build or develop weapons." According to the study, 75% Bush supporters also believe "Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda." Most Bush supporters [55%] believe that was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. In fact, the 9/11 commission concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Bush supporters also hold inaccurate views about world public opinion of the war in Iraq and a range of Bush's foreign policy positions.  Horrifying. Download at pipa.org… [PDF] or below.
This movie is also interesting: 
posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqNew poll proves that Bush supporters have little clue |
|
|||
|
It's interesting how the opinion about Bush is used to prove oneself right: Approx 60% said, that US would have NOT gone to war against Iraq if Iraq didn't have WMDs nor was involved in 9/11. THEREFORE (and here comes the mind perversion) Iraq obviously MUST have had WMDs or been involved in 9/11, otherwise Bush would not have gone to war. In other words: It must be true, because everything else would be too unbelievable, and it's impossible that the president is a bad guy.
Or as the director of PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) says: "To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq." It's like the robots in Star Trek movies: "There is no solution - must compute - *boom*" 
Approx. 40% say, that it was right to go against Iraq EVEN IF no WMDs and no 9/11 connection. Wow. Just 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the United States having gone to war with Iraq. 57% of Bush supporters incorrectly believe the majority of the world would favour Bush. 51% incorrectly assume Bush favors U.S. participation in the Kyoto treaty. 53% believe he supports the International Criminal Court, despite his attack on that body in the recent debates.  "The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake.
"This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters, and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters." Knowledge resistence, information blackout, reality blindness and another proof that democracies are in a scary condition... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's even worse than I thought. Because I would have supposed that Bush supporters vote for him because of religion reasons ("He is against abortion") = they know he lied, but religion is stronger. But it's worse. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me also add 1 thing: To lie to the people you just need to make the truth unbelievable enough (Bush went to war for other/secret reasons) OR A half-lie is stronger than truth (short-term) posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Saddam DID have WMDs before the war. Only it was quite a while before the war and any he had in Iraq in the second gulf war were ones that had been hidden and forgotten about (I believe a few of the shells used turned out, rather randomly, to have very old dangerous chemical material in them - if this had been intentional there would have been many more of these.) posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: Saddam DID have WMDs before the war. Only it was quite a while before the war That doesn't matter for the poll since the question asked was very specific: Quote: Is it your impression that experts mostly agree that just
before the war Iraq: and Quote: As you may know, Charles Duelfer, the chief weapons
inspector selected by the Bush administration to investigate whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, has just presented his final report to Congress. Is it your impression he concluded that, just before the war, Iraq had: and Quote: Is it your impression that the Bush administration is
currently saying that just before the war, Iraq: posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: a large majority [72%] of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. as did all the worlds intelligence agencies... Quote: In fact, the 9/11 commission concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq. part truth as in the 9/11 commission was to investigate links solely connencted with the 9/11 attacks posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: as did all the worlds intelligence agencies... But they didn't believe this just a couple of days ago. This is a fresh poll. Besides, where do you have this from? Not even CIA believed this. How could they? The didn't have spies on the ground. Quote: part truth as in the 9/11 commission was to investigate links solely connencted with the 9/11 attacks You distort the poll question here. The poll question is Asked in August what the 9/11 Commission had concluded:
13% say "Was directly involved in 9/11" 56% say Gave Al-Qaeda substantial support That is DEFINITELY NOT what the 9/11 commission concluded. Thus Bush voters get it wrong. You may believe what you want about hidden Sadddam weapons, but the question was about the 9/11 commission. However, to jump to anomalies defense: The 9/11 commission is a joke in itself. But that's another topic. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
as you indirectly point out...the remit for the 9/11 commission was ridiculously narrow...concentrating on only the events of 9/11 all the information given about supposed al queda members going to baghdad was in relation to plotting the 9/11 attacks and securing funding and refuge in order to help plan and execute the 9/11 attacks...hence the "no link" verdict a large majority [72%] of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. this statement can be interpreted 2 ways so i would like to see the original question it can either be...before the war...did you believe that saddam possessed WMD's or do you believe that saddam possessed WMD's before the war? and is a criticism of the polls put forward in my link regarding innacurate poll results posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: this statement can be interpreted 2 ways so i would like to see the original question ARGH! What for do I post the LINK to the original poll AND additionally have it downloadable? You are a Bush supporter right? Are you part of the guys that refuse to get information
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 23:01 php B.B. |