Clueless People Love Bush

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Studies show Bush supporters are misled on Bush policies and the news
by Molly Ivins

Editors note: Last month, workingforchange ran a piece by comedian Will Durst entitled Stupid people love Bush. Unlike that piece -- which was satirical -- this piece is factual.

Oh, you sweet, innocent, carefree citizens in non-swing states. You have no idea how much fun and slime you are missing.

In the swingers, wolves stalk us mercilessly (as the pro-wolf lobby points out indignantly, no one has ever been killed by wolves on U.S. soil, but try arguing that in the face of the relentless new TV ad campaign). Breaking news everywhere -- 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq left unattended, stock market down to year's low, leading economic indicators down, more tragedy in Iraq, the Swift Boat Liars are back, more Halliburton scandal, George Tenet says the war in Iraq is "wrong" -- it feels like you're dodging meteorites here in the Final Days.

Actually, the best evidence suggests we need to slow way down and go way back, because far from being able to take in anything new, it turns out many of our fellow citizens, especially Bush supporters, are stuck like bugs in amber in some early misperceptions that have never been cleared up.

It seems the majority of Bush supporters, according to recent polls, still believe Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda and even to 9-11, and that the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many of you are asking how that could possibly be, since everybody knows...

But everybody doesn't know. There it is. And if you are wondering why everybody doesn't know, you can either blame it on the media, always a shrewd move, or take notice that the administration is STILL spreading this same misinformation.

Both Donald Rumsfeld and Bush have publicly acknowledged there is no evidence of any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. However, as Dick Cheney campaigns, a standard part of his stump speech is the accusation that Saddam Hussein "had a relationship" with Al Qaeda or "has long-established ties to Al Qaeda." He makes this claim up to the present day. The 9-11 Commission, however, found that there was "no collaborative relationship" between the two.

Cheney, of course, also has never given up his touching faith that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, recently referring to a "nuclear" program that had in fact been abandoned shortly after the first Gulf War. Bush and Cheney misled the country into war using these two false premises, and it turns out an enormous number of our fellow citizens still believe both of them to be true. It's not because they're stupid, but because an administration they trust is still telling them both phony propositions are true.

Normally, when you get a situation like that -- where people are simply not acknowledging reality -- it is considered a cult, a form of groupthink based on irrational beliefs propagated by what is normally a charismatic leader. So those Kerry volunteers earnestly engaging Bush supporters on the latest outrage are way off base. They need to go all the way back to the Two Great Lies that got us into this: Many American soldiers marching into Iraq believed it was "payback for 9-11."

A third slightly blinding fact (to me) is that more people now think Kerry behaved shamefully in regards to Vietnam than did W. Bush. Incredible what brazen lying will do, isn't it?

A friend of Bush's dad got him into the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, a unit packed with the sons of the privileged trying to stay out of Vietnam, and he failed to complete his service there. Kerry is a genuine, bona fide war hero. The men who served on his boat are supporting him for president, but those who didn't serve with him, who weren't there, who don't know what happened, have been given more credence. Wolves will get you!

In further unhappy evidence of how ill-informed the American people are (blame the media), the Program on International Policy Attitudes found Bush supporters consistently ill-informed about Bush's stands on the issues (Kerry-ans, by contrast, are overwhelmingly right about his positions). Eighty-seven percent of Bush supporters think he favors putting labor and environmental standards into international trade agreements. Eighty percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning landmines. Seventy-six percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning nuclear weapons testing. Sixty-two percent believe Bush would participate in the International Criminal Court. Sixty-one percent believe Bush wants to participate in the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Fifty-three percent does not believe Bush is building a missile defense system, a.k.a. "Star Wars."

The only two Bush stands the majority of his supporters got right were on increasing defense spending and who should write the new Iraqi constitution.

Kerry supporters, by contrast, know their man on seven out of eight issues, with only 43 percent understanding he wants to keep defense spending the same but change how the money is spent, and 57 percent believing he wants to up it.

So what's going on here? I do not think Kerry people are smarter than Bush people, so why are they better-informed? Maybe a small percentage of ideological right-wingers don't believe anything the Establishment media say, but I don't think this is a matter of not believing what they hear, but of not hearing what's factual.

The great triumph of the political right in this country has been the creation of a network of alternative media. There are people who listen to Rush Limbaugh for more hours every day than the Branch Davidians listened to David Koresh. Watch Fox News, read The Washington Times -- hey, that's what the Bush administration does, according to its own words.

But it's not just the right-wing media purveying lies -- they are quoting the administration. These misimpressions come directly from the Bush administration, still, over and over.

© 2004 Working for Change

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1027-34.htm

Edit: forgot the link
 
You really have a hard time with facts, don't you? She's quoting a real study that shows most Bush backers are wrong about what he supports.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']You really have a hard time with facts, don't you? She's quoting a real study that shows most Bush backers are wrong about what he supports.[/quote]

I just found it entertaining reading a wacky left wing organization quoting "studies" done by other liberal organziations (PIPA - funded by liberal organizations & Kerry supporters i.e. Rockefeller Foundation, Tide Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc). And lets not forget her other big source, "recent polls." Good stuff. :lol:

Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to "don't believe everything you read, research the sources, think for yourself." :)
 
Let's not forget the INCREDIBLY OBJECTIVE author Molly Ivins. Who's about left of Leonid Brezhnev.

EDIT: Why am I not surprised this was posted/quoted from Common Dreams?

Oh MBE, you silly boy, not even I would post something from Rush Limbaugh as "news" or "factual" in this forum as it's all commentary. Yet we're supposed to swallow the leftist equivilent?

Oh sill boy....
 
I find it amusing that whenever conservatives are confronted with facts they don't like, they blame "liberal bias."

Molly Ivins is liberal, the Program on International Policy Attitudes is non-partisan www.pipa.org
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I find it amusing that whenever conservatives are confronted with facts they don't like, they blame "liberal bias."

Molly Ivins is liberal, the Program on International Policy Attitudes is non-partisan www.pipa.org[/quote]

BS pipa is non-partisan, again look at the sponsors of it - Rockefeller Foundation, Tide Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc - All hardcore liberal organziations/Kerry supporters. Just because a organization claims they are non-partisan doesn't mean they actually are.
 
Would you take one factual piece of information as truth from me if the author was Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, David Limbaugh, Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, G. Gordon Liddy, Michele Malkin, Ann Coultre or Robert Novak without dismissing it out of hand?

I don't even need to answer that.

EDIT: Let's not forget other non-partisan 5013C and 527 groups like the NAACP, NOW, Planned Parenthood, Move On PAC, ACORN, Media Fund, Americans Coming Together, People For the American Way, UAW, Teamsters, AFL-CIO and countless others. Hell, they're all non-partisan!
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='MrBadExample']I find it amusing that whenever conservatives are confronted with facts they don't like, they blame "liberal bias."

Molly Ivins is liberal, the Program on International Policy Attitudes is non-partisan www.pipa.org[/quote]

BS pipa is non-partisan, again look at the sponsors of it - Rockefeller Foundation, Tide Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc - All hardcore liberal organziations/Kerry supporters. Just because a organization claims they are non-partisan doesn't mean they actually are.[/quote]

I knew you wouldn't believe facts when you saw them. I guess that just confirms the study about Bush supporters.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Would you take one factual piece of information as truth from me if the author was Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, David Limbaugh, Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, G. Gordon Liddy, Michele Malkin, Ann Coultre or Robert Novak without dismissing it out of hand?

I don't even need to answer that.

EDIT: Let's not forget other non-partisan 5013C and 527 groups like the NAACP, NOW, Planned Parenthood, Move On PAC, ACORN, Media Fund, Americans Coming Together, People For the American Way, UAW, Teamsters, AFL-CIO and countless others. Hell, they're all non-partisan![/quote]

First things first, I dismiss EVERYTHING you say regardless of the source.

Second, show me where Molly Ivins has been accused of the same level of lies and spin as any one of the people you mentioned.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Ruined'][quote name='MrBadExample']I find it amusing that whenever conservatives are confronted with facts they don't like, they blame "liberal bias."

Molly Ivins is liberal, the Program on International Policy Attitudes is non-partisan www.pipa.org[/quote]

BS pipa is non-partisan, again look at the sponsors of it - Rockefeller Foundation, Tide Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc - All hardcore liberal organziations/Kerry supporters. Just because a organization claims they are non-partisan doesn't mean they actually are.[/quote]

I knew you wouldn't believe facts when you saw them. I guess that just confirms the study about Bush supporters.[/quote]

Here we have the message board equivilent of saying "He eats worms! He eats worms!" and the person being accused saying "Yes, I eat worms." and everyone going "SEE SEE SEE! I TOLD YOU SO!"

EDIT: MBE, you are not this stupid. You know for fact how slanted Molly Ivins is. Don't even begin to pretend you don't.

If you can't tell how biased and full of spin she is take a look at the titles of her books by searching "Molly Ivins" on Amazon. If you can't figure it out from that you're Quackzilla stupid. If you're too lazy to look other authors of interest that appear on that search are Maureen Dowd, Jim Hightower and Al Franken. Any more questions?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Ruined'][quote name='MrBadExample']I find it amusing that whenever conservatives are confronted with facts they don't like, they blame "liberal bias."

Molly Ivins is liberal, the Program on International Policy Attitudes is non-partisan www.pipa.org[/quote]

BS pipa is non-partisan, again look at the sponsors of it - Rockefeller Foundation, Tide Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc - All hardcore liberal organziations/Kerry supporters. Just because a organization claims they are non-partisan doesn't mean they actually are.[/quote]

I knew you wouldn't believe facts when you saw them. I guess that just confirms the study about Bush supporters.[/quote]

Here we have the message board equivilent of saying "He eats worms! He eats worms!" and the person being accused saying "Yes, I eat worms." and everyone going "SEE SEE SEE! I TOLD YOU SO!"

EDIT: MBE, you are not this stupid. You know for fact how slanted Molly Ivins is. Don't even begin to pretend you don't.

If you can't tell how biased and full of spin she is take a look at the titles of her books by searching "Molly Ivins" on Amazon. If you can't figure it out from that you're Quackzilla stupid. If you're too lazy to look other authors of interest that appear on that search are Maureen Dowd, Jim Hightower and Al Franken. Any more questions?[/quote]

Problem is, PAD, her article was based on research I already posted here in its pure form -- and I didn't see you saying a thing to refute it.

So stop trying to change the issue. This isn't about Ivins. This is about the fact that Republicans have to be ill-informed of the facts to maintain their support for Bush.
 
BLAH BLAH BLAH Dennis.

You wouldn't take one piece of factual information from anyone I listed even if they were quoting John Kerry. Why should I believe Molly Ivins? Why? What's her credibility as far as being objective? None. What's the point of believing non-partisan organizations that aren't non-partisan? None.

STFU you card carrying hypocrite.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']EDIT: MBE, you are not this stupid. You know for fact how slanted Molly Ivins is. Don't even begin to pretend you don't.

If you can't tell how biased and full of spin she is take a look at the titles of her books by searching "Molly Ivins" on Amazon. If you can't figure it out from that you're Quackzilla stupid. If you're too lazy to look other authors of interest that appear on that search are Maureen Dowd, Jim Hightower and Al Franken. Any more questions?[/quote]

I've read some of Molly Ivins books. I know she's anti-Bush and I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is that she is as factually incorrect as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Being pro or anti a certain candidate is not necessarily bad. It's when you start spinning and lying that I have a problem with it. Molly Ivins has covered Texas politics since way before Bush was Governor. In her books she is equally critical of any corrupt politicians.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']BLAH BLAH BLAH Dennis.

You wouldn't take one piece of factual information from anyone I listed even if they were quoting John Kerry. Why should I believe Molly Ivins? Why? What's her credibility as far as being objective? None. What's the point of believing non-partisan organizations that aren't non-partisan? None.

STFU you card carrying hypocrite.[/quote]

Don't believe anyone then. Go to a Bush rally and ask the faithful yourself. See how clueless they are.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']BLAH BLAH BLAH Dennis.

You wouldn't take one piece of factual information from anyone I listed even if they were quoting John Kerry. Why should I believe Molly Ivins? Why? What's her credibility as far as being objective? None. What's the point of believing non-partisan organizations that aren't non-partisan? None.

STFU you card carrying hypocrite.[/quote]

Okay, then, let's have our own little test case here and now. Here are the Iraq war questions in the PIPA survey. I'd like to see how the Republicans on this forum answer them.

If you're secure in your knowledge base, PAD, I expect to see you leading the pack. If not, I'll assume your level of knowledge warrants that you keep your posts to the "STFU" and "cunting whore" level of discourse.

Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq:
(a) Had actual weapons of mass destruction;
(b) Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them;
(c) Had some limited activities that could be used to help develop weapons of mass destruction, but not an active program; or
(d) Did not have any activities related to weapons of mass destruction.

Q14. Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization?

Q15. Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:
(a) The majority of people favor the US having gone to war;
(b) The majority of people oppose the US having gone to war; or
(c) Views are evenly balanced.

Q16. Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda:
(a) There was no connection at all;
(b) A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials but Iraq did not provide substantial support to al-Qaeda;
(c) Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks; or
(d) Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks.

Q17. Is it your impression the Bush administration is currently saying that the US has found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?
 
I'll put aside the credibility of the source and simply reply to the "facts".


[quote name='MrBadExample']Studies show Bush supporters are misled on Bush policies and the news
by Molly Ivins

Editors note: Last month, workingforchange ran a piece by comedian Will Durst entitled Stupid people love Bush. Unlike that piece -- which was satirical -- this piece is factual.

Oh, you sweet, innocent, carefree citizens in non-swing states. You have no idea how much fun and slime you are missing.

In the swingers, wolves stalk us mercilessly (as the pro-wolf lobby points out indignantly, no one has ever been killed by wolves on U.S. soil, but try arguing that in the face of the relentless new TV ad campaign). Breaking news everywhere -- 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq left unattended, stock market down to year's low, leading economic indicators down, more tragedy in Iraq, the Swift Boat Liars are back, more Halliburton scandal, George Tenet says the war in Iraq is "wrong" -- it feels like you're dodging meteorites here in the Final Days.

Actually, the best evidence suggests we need to slow way down and go way back, because far from being able to take in anything new, it turns out many of our fellow citizens, especially Bush supporters, are stuck like bugs in amber in some early misperceptions that have never been cleared up.

It seems the majority of Bush supporters, according to recent polls, still believe Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda and even to 9-11, and that the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many of you are asking how that could possibly be, since everybody knows...

But everybody doesn't know. There it is. And if you are wondering why everybody doesn't know, you can either blame it on the media, always a shrewd move, or take notice that the administration is STILL spreading this same misinformation.

Both Donald Rumsfeld and Bush have publicly acknowledged there is no evidence of any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. However, as Dick Cheney campaigns, a standard part of his stump speech is the accusation that Saddam Hussein "had a relationship" with Al Qaeda or "has long-established ties to Al Qaeda." He makes this claim up to the present day. The 9-11 Commission, however, found that there was "no collaborative relationship" between the two.
[/quote]

The 9/11 commission found there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States". That does not dismiss any possibility of ANY links. The report also included the following (often left out of the mainstream reports)):

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."

"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."

"Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."

Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."

That doesn't even address possible links between Iraq and other terrorist organizations, which are well documented.

Is that rock solid evidence that in and of itself would justify the war in Iraq? Not in my mind. But that's just a small part of the puzzle. I don't need documentation that Hussein & Bin Laden sat down to tea weekly. I can see enough evidence of links to terrorists, combined with what we do know are documented facts of the Iraqi regime, that it's not a stretch for me that Iraq was a gathering threat, that had to be dealt with to win a "global war on terror".

Now if others don't come to the same conclusion I do, that's fine. I wouldn't accuse them of being stupid, or clueless. I would accuse them of being naive.

Cheney, of course, also has never given up his touching faith that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, recently referring to a "nuclear" program that had in fact been abandoned shortly after the first Gulf War. Bush and Cheney misled the country into war using these two false premises, and it turns out an enormous number of our fellow citizens still believe both of them to be true. It's not because they're stupid, but because an administration they trust is still telling them both phony propositions are true.

So what exactly did Cheney say about Sadaam's "nuclear" program? For all the context the author provides Cheney may have said that Saddam at one point was pursuing nuclear weapons, and that he would have pursued them again. Fine, I don't have a problem with that. Not just because Cheney said it, but because Saddam had set a pattern of trying to develop all sorts of wmd, and a pattern of deceiving and manipulating those who were trying to prevent him from doing so. Once again, if you believe that Saddam had no intention or designs for pursuing nuclear weapons, fine, that's your opinion. I don't think you're clueless or stupid, just naive.

Normally, when you get a situation like that -- where people are simply not acknowledging reality -- it is considered a cult, a form of groupthink based on irrational beliefs propagated by what is normally a charismatic leader.

I think it's a bit outrageous to say those of us that don't simply say, "Oh, well I read on CNN that there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, so we have no business being in Iraq" are "not acknowledging reality". I would argue that those who have observed the behavior of Saddam over the last 20 years that now try and propose that he was harmless are closer to "not acknowledging reality". Oh, and BTW, since when has anyone (on the left or right) thought Bush a charismatic leader?

So those Kerry volunteers earnestly engaging Bush supporters on the latest outrage are way off base. They need to go all the way back to the Two Great Lies that got us into this: Many American soldiers marching into Iraq believed it was "payback for 9-11."
Another unsubstantiated, outrageous claim. I did not view our invasion of Iraq as payback for 9-11. I do not know anyone who did. Nor has she presented a single bit of evidence that "Many American soldiers" viewed it that way.

A third slightly blinding fact (to me) is that more people now think Kerry behaved shamefully in regards to Vietnam than did W. Bush. Incredible what brazen lying will do, isn't it?

A friend of Bush's dad got him into the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, a unit packed with the sons of the privileged trying to stay out of Vietnam, and he failed to complete his service there. Kerry is a genuine, bona fide war hero. The men who served on his boat are supporting him for president, but those who didn't serve with him, who weren't there, who don't know what happened, have been given more credence. Wolves will get you!
It was John Kerry that made Vietnam an issue in this campaign. The swift boat vets didn't start attacking him until after he started claiming that what he did in Vietnam was part of his qualifications for President. They disputed that.

I've never heard Bush, or anyone else, state that he was more honorable in Vietnam. Bush has never held up his service as qualifying him for the job. He has defended himself from attackers and said that he did his duty. Nothing more.

In further unhappy evidence of how ill-informed the American people are (blame the media), the Program on International Policy Attitudes found Bush supporters consistently ill-informed about Bush's stands on the issues (Kerry-ans, by contrast, are overwhelmingly right about his positions). Eighty-seven percent of Bush supporters think he favors putting labor and environmental standards into international trade agreements. Eighty percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning landmines. Seventy-six percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning nuclear weapons testing. Sixty-two percent believe Bush would participate in the International Criminal Court. Sixty-one percent believe Bush wants to participate in the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Fifty-three percent does not believe Bush is building a missile defense system, a.k.a. "Star Wars."

The only two Bush stands the majority of his supporters got right were on increasing defense spending and who should write the new Iraqi constitution.

Kerry supporters, by contrast, know their man on seven out of eight issues, with only 43 percent understanding he wants to keep defense spending the same but change how the money is spent, and 57 percent believing he wants to up it.
I would, as has been done previously question the validity and non-partisaness of this "study", but beyond that, when's the last time ANY of these issues were in the news? I heard a blurb about Kyoto the other day, but that's it. People right now are concerned about voting issues. I don't have a clue what Bush's position on international treaties against landmines, but I don't care either. It's not really an important voting issue for me. Of all those questions the author stated, the only one that I see as relevant is Bush's position on Star Wars. On that, I know and I agree with Bush's position. Ask Bush supporters where he stands on taxes, terrorism, etc. and I suspect the results will be slightly different.

I'm not surprised by the Kerry results, given that on most issues it's hard to be wrong about what his stance is.

So what's going on here? I do not think Kerry people are smarter than Bush people, so why are they better-informed? Maybe a small percentage of ideological right-wingers don't believe anything the Establishment media say, but I don't think this is a matter of not believing what they hear, but of not hearing what's factual.

The great triumph of the political right in this country has been the creation of a network of alternative media. There are people who listen to Rush Limbaugh for more hours every day than the Branch Davidians listened to David Koresh. Watch Fox News, read The Washington Times -- hey, that's what the Bush administration does, according to its own words.

But it's not just the right-wing media purveying lies -- they are quoting the administration. These misimpressions come directly from the Bush administration, still, over and over.

© 2004 Working for Change

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1027-34.htm

Edit: forgot the link

So there, you have someone responding to the "factual" content of the story.

You also have the reason why most of the time we simply ignore it. I have a job, a family, and an xbox, all of which deserve and require quality time :D . It's not that we're at a loss for words for responding to this kind of nonsense, but (at least speaking for myself) a lack of time. I have better things to do than respond to every one of the 15 posts per day that are cut-n-pasted to CAG saying, "see what an idiot GWB is. Go Kerry!" It's not that there's no way to refute the factual evidence, but you're not going to find the refutation posted in a single article on CBSNEWS.COM that you can cut & paste here (not that this source has the even the **cough** journalistic integrity **cough** of cbs news).
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']BLAH BLAH BLAH Dennis.

You wouldn't take one piece of factual information from anyone I listed even if they were quoting John Kerry. Why should I believe Molly Ivins? Why? What's her credibility as far as being objective? None. What's the point of believing non-partisan organizations that aren't non-partisan? None.

STFU you card carrying hypocrite.[/quote]

Okay, then, let's have our own little test case here and now. Here are the Iraq war questions in the PIPA survey. I'd like to see how the Republicans on this forum answer them.

If you're secure in your knowledge base, PAD, I expect to see you leading the pack. If not, I'll assume your level of knowledge warrants that you keep your posts to the "STFU" and "cunting whore" level of discourse.

Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq:
(a) Had actual weapons of mass destruction;
(b) Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them;
(c) Had some limited activities that could be used to help develop weapons of mass destruction, but not an active program; or
(d) Did not have any activities related to weapons of mass destruction.
[/quote]
This is way too simplistic a question and set of answers to address the issue. If I were asked this on the phone I would say "A" and someone would post a news article about how stupid I was. Realistically it's probably somewhere between a & c.

First of all, a doesn't specify mass quantities or huge stockpiles of wmd. It simply says wmd, which in my opinion would include the shell that was used inadvertently as a convential explosive but turned out to contain chemical or biological agents that could have been used if the terrorists had known what they had. Did Iraq have the amounts that we and every other government in the world thought they had? No, but that doesn't change the fact that the security council unanimously agreed that Saddam was in serious & material breach of the UN mandates that he destroy and disclose them.

Second, define "just before the war". Do you mean the day before the war when it's quite possible that much of it had been transported to Syria, or otherwise hid or dispersed them? Is that what happened? It's just as much a possibility as he simply didn't have them (and don't quote the Duefler report to me, because they acknowledge that's a possibility).

Q14. Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization?
Another overly simplistic question, that I would attribute to a biased agenda. Working closely with al-Qaeda? No. Aiding and abetting terrorists? Yes
Q15. Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:
(a) The majority of people favor the US having gone to war;
(b) The majority of people oppose the US having gone to war; or
(c) Views are evenly balanced.
Probably b, but unless you're looking to pass a global test, who cares? I have never heard the Bush administration suggest that the majority of the world does agree. I have heard them suggest that we aren't going alone, and we do have the support of many nations, which is correct.

Q16. Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda:
(a) There was no connection at all;
(b) A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials but Iraq did not provide substantial support to al-Qaeda;
(c) Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks; or
(d) Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks.
Again, the truth of what I believe is probably somewhere between b & c. But if you changed al-Qaeda in c to terrorist organizations I very much believe c.
Q17. Is it your impression the Bush administration is currently saying that the US has found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?
No. But again, a cleverly worded catch-22 question. Change "working closely" to "aiding and abetting" and delete "clear" & "al Qaeda" (and then of course make organizations plural) and my answer is Yes.
 
Well done, Mathrandir. I can appreciate a well-thought response even when I don't agree with it.

Having said that, I find your disections of the questions somewhat Clintonesque. You can't change "al Qaida" to "terrorists" because they are not the same. Hamas is a terrorist group but they didn't attack us on 9/11. Bush and Co. have carefully insinuated that Saddam is linked to 9/11 and al Qaida to support going to war and it just doesn't hold up.
 
bread's done
Back
Top