quote:The survey found that 72 percent of Bush supporters believe either that Iraq had actual WMD (47 percent) or a major program for producing them (25 percent), despite the widespread media coverage in early October of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA’s) “Duelfer Report,” the final word on the subject by the one billion dollar, 15-month investigation by the Iraq Survey Group.
quote:Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they believed that Iraq was providing “substantial” support to Al Qaeda, with 20 percent asserting that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believed that the clear evidence of such support has actually been found, and 60 percent believe that “most experts” have reached the same conclusion.
quote:Remarkably, asked whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq if U.S. intelligence had concluded that Baghdad did not have a WMD program and was not providing support to al Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said no, and 61 percent said they assumed that Bush would also not have gone to war under those circumstances.
quote:“To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions,” said Kull, “likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq.”
Kull added that this “cognitive dissonance” could also help explain other remarkable findings in the survey, particularly with respect to Bush supporters’ misperceptions about the president’s own positions.
In particular, majorities or Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent).
In August, two thirds of Bush supporters also said they believed that Bush supported the International Criminal Court (ICC), although in the latest poll, that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority, even though Bush explicitly denounced the ICC in the most widely watched nationally televised debate of the campaign in late September.
In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush.
I find the implications of this terrifying. Please tell me it isn't true.
[ October 22, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*Not a Bush supporter, and won't be voting for him, but would really appreciate a link to the material*
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Would you mind posting the source of that for me please? Thanks.
Reminds me of Jaywalking or Hannity's "Man on the Street" interviews.
Most of the people voting on both sides are doing so based on "perceptions" or "rhetoric" vs. actual knowledge of the issues.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry, I meant to put the link in the original post. You guys posted while I was editing to correct my mistake.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not that naive. I think a survey of Kerry Supporters who believe really off the wall things would be interesting. I think this goes along the lines of "Conservatives are illiterate" dialogue.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It's scary when you talk to people (hatrackers notable exceptions) about why they are choosing to vote a certain way.
I've heard everything from "My grandparents were democrats, my parents were democrats, and I vote democrat and they've never steered me wrong" to "Kerry's wife seems like such a b*tch, I'm voting for Bush because I don't want that woman to be first lady."
Its' really sad how few people try to really become informed on the issues.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
1) Most of the people voting _____________ are doing so based on "perceptions" or "rhetoric" vs. actual knowledge of the issues.
a) Kerry b) Democrat c) all of the above
No, CS, the correct answer in "c" all of the above
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
You can't really blame them.... Bush keeps misleading people into believing all these things are true. If you trust Bush, as Bush supporters supposedly do, you're going to believe him when he suggests these Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked or when he claims to be multilateral. Bush's entire campaign, unlike Kerry's, is built on this misinformation.
Adding to the problem is this popular notion among conservatives that the mainstream media can't be trusted - which are the sources that are supposed to correct misinformation.
[ October 22, 2004, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Here is the actual report for the Universiy of Maryland Group.
[ October 22, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I found the point of the "survey" interesting.
So why didn't they ask similar "slanted" questions of Kerry supporters?
Like, How many Kerry supporters believed Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Or How many believe John Kerry did not commit war crimes in Vietnam.
Or how many believe John Kerry met with North Vietnamese leaders in France while the war was going on?
Or how many believe Kerry served more than 4 months in Vietnam.
Or how many believe that Kerry met with communists leaders in Nicaragua and failed miserably.
etc. etc.
I guess my point is, if you are intentionally slanting a poll in order to get the results that "you want". You probably will.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
Belle, I agree. I was getting my hair cut the other day and I asked my stylist what she thought of debates, etc. She said that she hadn't watched any them and didn't know what to think about either candidate. So I pushed a little more and asked if she knew who she was going to vote for.. She replied, "Well..I really don't like Bush's daughters...they seem so snobby...but Kerry's wife seems kind of wierd. So, I'm not sure." I was speechless for a moment...and then asked what she thought of the war in Iraq. "Oh...I don't know anything about that."
I didn't know how to reply so I just dropped the subject.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The survey was a University of Maryland study, and it found that on Iraq, Kerry supporters were basically the opposite of the aforementioned Bush supporters (not all that surprising), and that they were more correct in identifying the Kerry stances on the treaties mentioned above.
-Bok
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Those number tell me two things:
1) the poll question were probably badly worded (well, duh)
2) a lot of americans are dumb, and a lot more are not well informed, neither of which precludes them from asserting support for a candidate
The whole thing is set up to make it sound like Bush supporters are more dumb and uninformed than Kerry supporters. The problem is that Kerry supporters aren't asked similar questions about issues that they are likely to support simply because of their political bent. Certainly, if you asked Kerry supporters the same questions that were asked of those Bush supporters, you would find they didn't come up with the same dumb answers, but that isn't necessarily because they're smarter. It could well be because they don't like Bush.
As for your fears, Rabbit, I assure you that there are many intelligent, well-informed citizens who are planning to vote for Bush. Most of us know quite a lot about the reasons for the war, both before and after full WMD information came out. Most of us also know quite a lot about Iraq's ties to terrorism and terrorist acts, and yes, we know he wasn't one of the parties behind 9/11.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So why didn't they ask similar "slanted" questions of Kerry supporters?
Read the study! They did. The poll was equally split between Bush supporters and Kerry supporters.
Excert from full report
quote:Despite the report of the 9/11 Commission saying there is no evidence Iraq was providing significant support to al Qaeda, 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (30% of Kerry supporters), with 20% believing that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believe that clear evidence of this support has been found, while 85% of Kerry supporters believe the opposite.
If you go to here you can read the researchers summary of the report. If you scroll to the bottom of the page and click on report of findings you can get the complete report in pdf format. You can also see the questionaire and press release.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:1) the poll question were probably badly worded (well, duh)
Duh? The questions are linked to at the bottom of that page, and they don't seem badly worded. Which questions do you think were wrong?
Rather than being "set up" to deliberately make Bush supporters look uninformed, isn't it possible that Bush supporters ACTUALLY ARE more uninformed?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:1) the poll question were probably badly worded (well, duh)
Go to the site and read the questions before you draw such conclusions.
[ October 22, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Kranky, I disagree that it's only Kerry or Democrats that vote "uninformed". I think both sides do so. Some people take who they're voting for very seriously. Alot of people have more important things to do and so they allow the minimal knowledge they have to dictate their perception.
It happens on both sides.
It'd be pretty easy to formulate a survey that makes Kerry supports look "uninformed" or "stupid" in many ways as well, but for some reason, that survey wasn't done.
I wonder why?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Attack the voters!
The Onion was right!
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Traveler, isn't it possible that she was hiding her feelings because she was at work? When your livelihood depends on repeat business from satisfied customers, discussing any subject that might lead to contention is dangerous. Staying neutral is best, but in her defense, it's hard to claim you are neutral about things like the Iraq war and the election. I can see why she might want to claim ignorance instead. Not saying this is definitely the case, she might really be that vapid when it comes to politics, but it is a possibility.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Chad,
Go ahead, ask us. We promise not to Google the asnwers.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
CS, I'm not sure what your point is?
The war in Iraq is a central issue in this campaign not because either candidate has chosen it but because it is something the voters care about.
Kerry's vietnam service record isn't.
If the survey had asked questions about Bush's national guard record but not about Kerry's record, that would indicate bias. Asking questions about Iraq is not?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The questions are badly slanted and poorly worded.
I liked the use of the word "major" for program instead of just saying a "program" because they were fishing for certain answers.
More Kerry supporters say we should build a "missle defense system immediately". Does Kerry share that view?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It'd be pretty easy to formulate a survey that makes Kerry supports look "uninformed" or "stupid" in many ways as well, but for some reason, that survey wasn't done.
So CS, now that you've read the full questionaire. What questions would you have asked that would have made Kerry supporters look dumb?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My sweet lovable Mother-In-Law is scared to death of John Kerry.
These are the facts she swears will occur if he's elected.
1) By December there will be a Draft in the US.
2) He will mandate federal censorship of all news.
3) His Communist agenda will come to light.
Where she gets these ideas, I do not know. I could understand them as fears, but she holds these ideas as FACTS, not to be debated.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: The war in Iraq is a central issue in this campaign not because either candidate has chosen it but because it is something the voters care about.
Kerry's vietnam service record isn't.
If the survey had asked questions about Bush's national guard record but not about Kerry's record, that would indicate bias. Asking questions about Iraq is not?
Actually asking "slanted" questions about the war in Iraq is.
Read the questionaire. The questions are slanted.
And Kerry's military service was the foundation of his campaign. It most definately IS very important.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:whispers into watch:
They're on to Captain Ketchup.
:listens:
No, some old lady.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The actual question and results are detailed below.
quote:Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq. [ARO] 10/04 8/04 Had actual weapons of mass destruction ..........................27% 35 Bush supporters......................................................47 63 Kerry supporters.......................................................8 13
Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them ..................................22 19 Bush supporters......................................................25 18 Kerry supporters.....................................................18 18
Had some limited activities that could be used to help develop weapons of mass destruction, but not an active program ...................................................................37 34 Bush supporters......................................................25 16 Kerry supporters.....................................................51 50
Did not have any activities related to weapons of mass destruction.................................................................12 10
Bush supporters........................................................2 2
(No answer)..........................................................................2 4
Where is the bias?
[ October 22, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Oh, and one thing to point out 80% of the people polled were white/caucasian. I find that interesting as well.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The questions I asked above as well as multiple others.
How many Kerry supporters believe Kerry was for the 1st Gulf War?
How many Kerry supporters believe Kerry voted for the war in Iraq?
etc. etc. ad naseum.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them
Take "Major" out of the equation and the results differ and would "look" different. Kerry supporters would look worse because he did have a program, it just wasn't "major".
That one word says a "whole" lot about the bias of the survey.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, considering what the population of the US breaks down to, I would be very suspicious did they not have a large percentage of the population being white/caucasian if they assert they sampled randomly.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So only 8% of the population are African American/Black?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Xaposert,
When I refer to the poll questions being badly worded (well, duh), I am mostly referring to my feeling about poll questions in general. The biggest problem with them is that they can only capture generalizations, and not nuances of opinion. They force people to place themselves in a category that they really don't belong in, just because they think it's the closest thing to what they actually DO believe. The questions also necessarily mean different things to different people. Thus, two people who actually believe something very different might read or hear the same question and assume that they each agree with it. And these inherent problems can easily be aggravated by the people who prepare the questions.
Some examples of probably problems I see in this particular set of questions:
When the question ask about WMD's, what count as "WMD's"? More importantly, what do people think "WMD's" means? Do old, long dormant and almost certainly ineffective weapons count, or only those that could actually be readily and effectively used? Do small, scattered amounts of weapons count, or only a significant arsenal?
For that matter, what constitutes a "major program" for developing WMD's? Does it have to have a large budget? Does it have to have a large number of people working on it? Do attempts to purchase WMD's rather than invent and build them yourself count?
As for the Al Qaeda connection, who do people think Al Qaeda actually is? What kind of affiliation must a person have with the group to be considered a part of it? Do connections with mere members count, or only connections with the top leadership? What does "working closely" with Al Qaeda mean? Does it mean staging joint operations? Does it mean sending each other material support? Does it mean coordinating plans? Does it just mean giving each other a congratulatory phone call whenever one commits a truly spectacular atrocity? What does "substantial support" mean?
For the record, I think that the response of Bush supporters probably run the gamut from "Heck, yeah, Saddam had WMD's. We've found them, too. The liberal media conspiracy is just trying to hide that fact," to "Of course Saddam had WMD's. We know he had them before, and that he has used them before. How can we believe he would suddenly up and do away with them? He's just a sneaky son-of-a-gun. We'll find them eventually" to "He probably had some WMD's around, but a lot of them were probably too old to do much good. His capability to produce more had been cut, but he surely was trying to get his hands on them however he could, and holding on to the ones he had even if they wouldn't work anymore" to "Well, it looks like he didn't have any WMD's after all, but how were we to know that ahead of time? Everybody thought had them. And it's just possible that they're still out there somewhere. Who knows?" to "Oops." There are also many possibilities I haven't thought of.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
only 69% of the population is white/caucasian. The report doesn't reflect those same numbers. That's a 10% difference.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Oh, and one thing to point out 80% of the people polled were white/caucasian. I find that interesting as well.
Why do you find this interesting. According to data at the US census website, 80% of US citzens over the age of 18 are white caucasian.
All this says to me is that the racial distribution of those surveys is similar to the racial distribution of US citizens of voting age.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
fug,
Especially when you take into account likely voters. I'm starting to think that rabid lions could not keep middle-aged white people from voting. I feel badly because all of the non-white voters can't keep up. It's all we can do to make a showing. Though, there are reasons for this.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
EDIT: And it's actually a 12% difference. 69% in actuallity to 82% in the "survey".
[ October 22, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I imagine it gets even more white when we add likely voters in battleground states.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:How many Kerry supporters believe Kerry voted for the war in Iraq?
I don't, because he didn't. War was never declared in Iraq (that seems not to happen any more). He voted to make it possible for Bush to start the war in Iraq.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And that Destineer is exactly my point with this survey. Thanks. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If I vote to allow you to do X, that doesn't mean I voted for X.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Take "Major" out of the equation and the results differ and would "look" different. Kerry supporters would look worse because he did have a program, it just wasn't "major".
There are 4 possible answers to the question ranging from having actual WMDs to having no program at all. The trend is clear no matter how the questions was worded. A most popular answer among Bush voters was not this option. In August 63% of Bush votein Sept. and 47% in October said Iraq had actual WMDs. Bush voters are nearly evenly distributed between major programs and limited activities whereas Kerry voter were 3 times as likely to pick "limited activites". BTW limited activities was the result of both the CIA report.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Exactly. That is my point. But your only option is yes or no and is defined by me (the pollster), not by you. So what you think you are saying and what I am defining you as saying, may be two different things.
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
quote: Percent Number of total Race and Hispanic or Latino (in thousands) population RACE Total Population............................ 281,421 100.0% One race......................................... 274,595 97.6% White........................................... 211,460 75.1% Black or African American........... 34,658 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native........................... 2,475 0.9% Asian........................................ 10,242 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander............ 399 0.1% Some other race...................... 15,359 5.5% Two or more races...................... 6,826 2.4% HISPANIC OR LATINO Total population.................... 281,421 100.0% Hispanic or Latino..................... 35,305 12.5% Not Hispanic or Latino.............. 246,116 87.5%
I could be reading that wrong, but it looks closer to a 75% white population.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Uhleeuh ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Rabbit there are other questions to be asked for clarification that intentionally weren't. How many believe that they had WMD's and were removed to a foreignn country? would be one.
How many believe we actually found items used to make WMD's in Iraq? would be another.
The questions are meant to "slant". It's clear.
So, my question to the original title would be,
"Kerry supporters, Tell me you aren't really naive enough to believe this "survey" was accurate"?
That's the real question.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So the margin of error isn't satisfactory disclaimer?
Also, if we can't rely on surveys of this sort, can we believe any? Are stuck arguing anecdotes for perpetuity?
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You need to match statistic to statistic. The survey says "White (non hispanic)" at 82% for the demographics.
The Census for the exact same "White (non hispanic) says 69%.
You have to match the same data.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I still say we must all be naive if these are the two major candidates we've got to choose from.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And I would agree. I've heard just as big "naivety" from both sides.
When you ask slanted questions (which demonstrate an intentional "bias" in one direction) you are probably going to be able to get whatever results you want.
If you ask questions that are "Doctrinal" points for one side (in this survey, Kerry) then those diciples of that one side will be more knowledgable about them. If you were to ask questions that Bush campaign focus on, guess who would be more knowledgable about those? I would guess Bush supporters would.
It's like asking Christians and Jews their knowledge of the New Testament and then blaming the Jews for not knowing alot about it.
That's dishonest unless you are likewise going to ask the Christians about their knowledge of the Talmud and Midrash. There most definately would be differences.
That's all I'm saying. This survey's point is biased. There isn't one Question that deals with Kerry and his voting record on Iraq, etc.
Not one.
It's all Bush and Iraq from Kerry's stance on it.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You need to match statistic to statistic. The survey says "White (non hispanic)" at 82% for the demographics.
The Census for the exact same "White (non hispanic) says 69%.
The 69% is for total population. 80% is voting age citzens. If you
If you go to this site , you can find the census data for voting age citzens in 2000.
From Table 1-1, the total citzen population over age 18 in 2000 was 193,376,975. The total white only citzens over 18 was 155,254,313 or 80% of eligible voters. The total white only not Hispanic or Latino was 147,768,945 or 76% of eligible voters. These numbers are not significantly different than the numbers given in the survey based on the reported error margin for the survey.
I have been unable to find data on the racial distribution of registered voters and actual voters from the 2000 election. Since minorities are less likely to register to vote and less likely to vote than whites, it is likely that this would put the racial distribution of those surveyed directly in line with that of registered voters.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It's all Bush and Iraq from Kerry's stance on it.
Then the fact remains that it suggests Bush supporters are on average far more misinformed on the issues of Bush and Iraq.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It's a fact that I suggest the opposite. It doesn't make it true.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
OK, Census bureau voting statistics based on race for the 2000 and 1996 elections can be found at this link.
In 2000, 59.8% of eligible voters reported voting, 61.8% of eligible white non-hispanic voters reported voting. Combining this information with the numbers for total eligible voters and total white non-hispanic voters I gave earlier, I get the 79.4% of the voters in the 2000 election were white non-Hispanic.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
The Rabbit:
I would love to hear more about what you think the implications of the survey results are and why you think they are terrifying.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It's a fact that I suggest the opposite. It doesn't make it true.
What you suggest doesn't prove anything, because any given person can suggest any given thing. Surveys, in contrast, can only say what the evidence supports.
The results of the survey are the thing that makes it true. It asked them about Iraq and Bush's stances, and they were misinformed.
Certainly, when students are taking a test in college on Iraq they don't claim the test questions are unfair because it didn't also cover John Kerry in Vietnam, do they?
[ October 22, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: 61.8% of eligible white non-hispanic voters reported voting.
Vs. 82% of those "surveyed"? That's 21% difference.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Certainly, when students taking a test in college on Iraq they don't claim the test questions are unfair because it didn't also cover John Kerry in Vietnam, do they?
But the survey isn't claiming to be a survey of "Bush supporters vs. Kerry Supporters on Kerry's views on Iraq".
Which is what that survey is.
Kinda dishonest.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
What does this survey have to do with Kerry's opinions on Iraq? This survey doesn't mention Kerry's views on Iraq. It's about the facts of Iraq, and Bush's policies.
Or are you saying the facts in Iraq and John Kerry's position are the same thing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The 61.8% refers the percentage of whites who voted. The 82% refers to the percentage of everyone surveyed. The percentages can't be directly compared.
I've found it's best to ignore these kind of surveys and the posts about them. If Bush voters are more uninformed, then I'm just greatful their misinformation isn't preventing them from voting for the right candidate.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Xapo, then every survey is true, regardless of the bias? I've seen some pretty biased reports (this one included) that if you accept the data as generally true of all US society, would be false.
I seem to remember e-mails of "data" collected from the 2000 elections that painted a very negative view of the IQ's of Democrats vs. Republicans. Was it true? The data was, the assumptions they made weren't.
It's equally true with this.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
You can't just call a survey result biased because you don't want it to be true. You haven't shown any bias in the questions.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:What does this survey have to do with Kerry's opinions on Iraq? This survey doesn't mention Kerry's views on Iraq. It's about the facts of Iraq, and Bush's policies.
Or are you saying the facts in Iraq and John Kerry's position are the same thing?
No, these are facts that are main talking points of Kerry. There are other facts as well that he ignores (as well as many Democrats).
I've stated how that is dishonest with the analogy above.
This survey doesn't cover "every" fact of Iraq. It covers facts that are important for Kerry and his supporters. Just like there are facts that are important to Bush and his supporters.
I agree with Dagonee. Let those who want to believe in these survey's as "Gospel", be my guest.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: You haven't shown any bias in the questions.
Which questions deal with Kerry's votes on Iraq or his views on Iraq?
How many questions contain the word "bush" or "administration"? vs. "kerry".
I've already proved the bias on the previous page. Thanks and goodbye.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Wanting questions about different topics is not the same as having biased questiosn.
If you want a survey to ask who thinks Kerry voted for what, by all means make one or find one or suggest that somebody do one. But that doesn't change the fact that on these issues - whether or not Saddam had WMDs, whether the U.S. is engaged in certain treaties, how the Bush administration has stood on certain topics - on these issues Bush supporters are misinformed.
And unless you think the lack of WMDs in Iraq is an unimportant fact that wouldn't change anyone's position on the war itself, that's some pretty significant misinformation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"But, but, if you asked different questions with different meanings, you'd get different answers!"
No duh (and its definitely warranted here). The only question important for bias is, if different questions were asked with the same meaning, would different answers be given. You haven't shown any such thing.
Saying that a survey is biased because it asks questions regarding bush and the administration and not Kerry (when the survey is, *gasp*, about finding people's conceptions about the administration's approach to the Iraq war) is like saying a survey trying to ascertain people's knowledge of the ingredients in peanut butter is biased because it doesn't have questions about jelly.
Just because two things are commonly matched together doesn't mean one can only ask questions about both of them at once.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
*pats your hand* You go ahead and keep believing that... Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I suspect most people will...
[ October 22, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
What kind of person looks at a poll like that and immediately thinks, "Gasp! Most of the people who hold the political view that opposes my own are complete MORONS!" What kind of opinion would you have to have about humanity to think that?
Rather than jump to the conclusion that your many millions of opponents must be absolute dolts (while those that agree with you are obviously much smarter and, by the way, much more good-looking), wouldn't it be more rational to look for explanations in real, human terms? As in, "Why would a person think this way? Why might they have answered this question this way?"
Naw, too reasonable. Much better to focus on their inferiority.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But going back to the question of WHY these people would still hold such conclusions, even after all this evidence to the contrary... Is someone to blame?
Is Bush still succeeding in misleading people, even though he admits there are no WMDs? Or is Kerry failing to inform them? Or is it the media that is failing?
I suspect the last is the most true. The media has covered this race very heavily, but has shown a surprising lack of facts on the real issues. Those facts have been drowned out by issues of "performance" - who is scowling, who is too boring, what the spinmasters are saying, what the parties are doing to manipulate us, who is winning in the polls today, and so on. The debate is all about the debate itself, rather than the issues that should be debated.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
space opera
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:What kind of person looks at a poll like that and immediately thinks, "Gasp! Most of the people who hold the political view that opposes my own are complete MORONS!" What kind of opinion would you have to have about humanity to think that?
Nobody has said that. Rabbit did ask if Bush supporters were naive, but that's about it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: What kind of person looks at a poll like that and immediately thinks, "Gasp! Most of the people who hold the political view that opposes my own are complete MORONS!"
Apparently and suprisingly, quite a few people.
And I was wrong in thinking a poll titled: Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters.
Would be about the differences of both evenly questioned.
My bad.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Which people? Nobody has said that yet.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
In the category of "dumb reasons to vote for someone," one of my friends was talking to someone at her school today, and she basically says "I'm voting for Bush because he only got to serve two years since he took over after Clinton was impeached out of office, and I think everyone should get to serve their full term."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Paul--Duh.
C--This reminds me of the ABC Bias thing, where they put out a memo basically stating--"Bush is stretching the truth farther than Kerry, so spend more time researching Bush's comments than Kerry's." and the rightist Radio mafia screamed, "Thats biased. If you disprove 10 of Kerry's lies, you have to stop at 10 of ours, no matter how many we tell, or that is just biased reporting."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Exactly Dan... the media has a responsibility to correct falsities in proportion to the amount that those falsities are told and in proportion to the importance the campaigns are giving them. When one side is more misleading than the other, refuting equal numbers of both gives the public a false sense that the candidates are equally untruthful. If this isn't done, truth falls by the wayside, because both sides are encouraged to out-lie the other. (The side that lies less is not penalized.)
[ October 22, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The survey doesn't ask a single question about either Bush's or Kerry's history. It doesn't ask a single question about Bush's or Kerry's campaign platform. It doesn't ask a single question about Bush's or Kerry's proposals.
If questions on Kerry's history had been included in the report without including questions on Bush
The survey asks questions about the war in Iraq, the economy, and various international treaties.
There is no significant difference between Kerry and Bush voters in their attitudes toward the various international treaties.
The largest and most consistent differences observed were between the understanding of Bush and Kerry voters on the Iraq war.
There is also a difference between the Kerry and Bush supporters in their view of the economy. Kerry voters were more than 3 times as likely to say that the economy has gotten worse in the past year, which is not consistent with most economic indicators. It's unfortunate that there were not more questions asked on this issue.
It is more reasonable to claim that this question was slanted toward Bush voters. If the question had been asked is the economy gotten better or worse since Bush took office, the economic indicators would tell a different story.
I am curious as to why Kerry voters are more likely to believe that the economy has gotten worse in the past year. I can see 3 reasonable possibilities.
1. Kerry voters are less likely to believe economic reports coming from the Bush administration because they don't trust Bush.
2. People who have been adversely impact by economic changes such as job loss, higher gas prices and higher food prices, are less likely to be Bush supporters and more likely to have a negative opinion of the economy.
3. Kerry voters are ignorant of the recent economic reports.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rabbit, All other considerations aside, you could have set this up in such a way that it wasn't a blatant attack on people who support George Bush. You didn't. I actually think that the issues raised here are important, but I found your framing of them very poor.
I'm also getting tired of having to play this role. If you think your evidence is really damaging to the other side, you don't need to introduce it in such a loaded way. The evidence will speak for itself. If it needs you to punch it up with accusations, it's probably not all that compelling.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But going back to the question of WHY these people would still hold such conclusions, even after all this evidence to the contrary... Is someone to blame?
The answer to this is much more complicated than you think. The author of this study made a comment that gets at the issue when he said--
quote:“To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions,” said Kull, “likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq.”
This is a psych phenomenon that is very well known among educators. Once a person has accepted a particular position on how the world works they view all new information through that lens. When they are presented with data, theories and explanations that counter their position, it causes cognative dissonance and they tend to discount the new information in a variety of ways. For example, they often completely forget they heard the new information, they twist the new information so that they can't see any contradication between the new and the old information or they reject the new information as faulty. As a result, if people have learned an invalid model of how the world works, it is very difficult for them to unlearn that model and accept a new one. Anyone who has taught science or engineering for very long can testify to this. Sometimes scientific ideas are counter intuitive at first (for example consider the idea that it is possible to be accelerating in a southerly direction while moving at high speen in a northerly direction). You would be astounded at how hard it is to teach students that concept.
The most viable explanation for why so many Bush supporter have views of Iraq that are contrary to accepted data. For a variety of reasons, these voters decided sometime ago that Bush was trust worthy. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I heard many people say "Bush is a great man with high integrity, He wouldn't be leading us into Iraq if it weren't absolutely necessary." Now when they are confronted with evidence that the war was absolutely not needed for our defense and has in fact made America less secure by many measures, it causes cognative dissonance. They either have to reject their original belief and conclude that Bush isn't a great or honorable man (in which case they are probably Bush voters) or they reject the new data in one way or another. The more heavily invested the person was in the original position the harder it will be to get them to accepted the validity of the new evidence.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:All other considerations aside, you could have set this up in such a way that it wasn't a blatant attack on people who support George Bush. You didn't. I actually think that the issues raised here are important, but I found your framing of them very poor.
You are very correct. I apologize. My framing of the issues reflecta my level of exasperation with the current state of American politiics. My apologies to any Bush supporters who I unjustly offended.
On the other hand, I doubt anyone would have read the thread at all if I had entitled it "Results of latest survey from University of Maryland". It's always so difficult for me to decide how to name a thread. Name it something too innocent, and no one read it at all. Pick something to inflamatory and it turns into a flame war.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
What I don't understand is why people thought Bush was trustworthy and had integrity in the first place -- before all the war build up.
Politics is so weird.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I'll take this one.
I supported the war in Iraq because I believed (wrongly I guess) that no president, be he Republican, Democrat, or Communist, would ever intentionally mislead us to achieve objectives that would negatively affect the country.
When Bush said Saddam had WMDs, I believed him.
That is also the reason why I don't believe Bush deserves a second term. His word means nothing to me now.
[ October 22, 2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Also, it's generally unfair to assume someone is untrustworthy and lacking integrity until they do something to prove it. Prior to his election, he had done little to prove it.
When Bush was elected, I defended him because people were assuming he would make a bad president based on some perception they had of him prior to even seeing what he could do. I pointed out that there was no reason to believe he, any more than any president prior to him, would ruin the world if elected - as some liked to claim. (Looking back, that prediction doesn't sound quite as good, though.)
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I just wanted to point out there are actually conservatives out there who concede some of these points and will still vote for Bush.
(I remember Scarborough after the Cheney/Edwards debate. He was laughing while repeating Cheney's claim that he'd never tied Iraq to 9/11. Or George Will berating this administration as one that never punishes failure or incompetence.)
There are Hatrackers here who are like that as well. It's not that they don't have problems with Bush and see significant problems. They see Kerry as presenting another set of problems that they find even more troubling.
The study is focussing on something different, though. People who deal with problematic aspects of the administration by ignoring or shifting facts to fit their support for Bush.
It's a more significant phenomenon with Bush due to the country having 4 years to "know" him, and to rely on him in a time of national crisis. Kerry was on the radar screen of relatively few people outside of Massachussetts in a significant way until he pulled ahead in the primaries.
*done elaborating the obvious*
[ October 22, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I just wanted to point out there are actually conservatives out there who concede some of these points and will still vote for Bush.
Yes, according to the survey about 1 in 4 of the people who support Bush concede these points and will still vote for him.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: quote: 61.8% of eligible white non-hispanic voters reported voting.
Vs. 82% of those "surveyed"? That's 21% difference.
CS, This is exactly the kind of illogic that has me concerned.
I gave you all the numbers and thought you could follow the arguements. Let me explain one more time.
According to the 2000 census report there were 193,376,975 americans eligible to vote in 2000 (citzens over 18 and 59.8% of them said they voted. Of those who were eligible to vote, 147,768,945 were white non-Hispanic and 61.4% of the white non-Hispanic citzens of 18 said the voted. If you do the math, you find that 79.4% of the voters in the 2000 presidential election were White non-Hispanics.
The speed at which you jumped to the conclusion that this report was biased before even bothering to look at the details is exactly the kind of biased reasoning that terrifies me.
[ October 22, 2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
With every passing day, I get the impression that the reason that we have such a deadlocked election is not because we disagree about what to do about the facts, but we don't seem to know what the facts are.
The debates didn't help this any. Quite often, one canidate would say one thing, another would say "that's not true" or something similar, and neither would justify their position. One of them was usually right and the other was wrong, but neither supported their "facts"-- and naturally, Kerry supporters are more likely to believe Kerry, and Bush supporters are more likely to believe Bush. A similar problem arises with the media: is CNN liberal? FoxNews, conservative? If so, how can one trust information from either side?
I saw a Doonesbury strip recently where one of the characters was wondering how there could possibly be any undecideds left in the country, with all the information available; I think the reason is that the undecideds aren't quite sure who to believe, and if/when they discover the truth, quite often are disgusted by what they find out: that one canidate was just flat-out wrong, while the other didn't tell the whole truth. One isn't easily persuaded to vote for either.
Thank goodness for factcheck.
--j_k
[ October 22, 2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So far, all the undecideds I've met have their heads so far up their rear ends, that they don't know who the candidates are.
I don't think we have undecideds because of a problem with facts, I think in this election, people are undecided because they don't care enough to make a decision.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I would love to hear more about what you think the implications of the survey results are and why you think they are terrifying.
I've been thinking for sometime about how to explain my response to this survey. The study confirms something that I've been concerned about for sometime. To a greater and greater extent, America is becoming a society with two different realities. The major divisions between Americans on important issues like the Iraq War, the economy, justice and so forth no longer seem to be based on difference in values, but instead on differences in how people perceive the facts. If we can not come to some sort of agreement on the facts, I can't see how we can even begin to heal the divide that is growing in this country.
When study after study concludes that there were no WMDs in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003, and so many people still insist that there were it demonstrates that many individuals have abandoned rational investigation as a means to determine the facts. When people reject rational investigation as a means to determine the facts, we have lost the primary common ground that holds together a democratic society.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I hear that 9 out of ten partisans will consider the other party supporters complete and total morons. This thread seems a good indication that what I heard was true.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:With every passing day, I get the impression that the reason that we have such a deadlocked election is not because we disagree about what to do about the facts, but we don't seem to know what the facts are.
I don't think that is it either. I think it's that people decide on their view first and afterwards pick whatever facts will support it.
And I think the notion that this is acceptable stems from philosophical relativism.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Who should we all hasten to, then? You? "God?" Jimmy Jones' pet hamster?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Me. Duh.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
"I am Alucard, I am stupid, and I support this message."
. . . . . . . . . . note: this message has been brought to you either partially or in full by the Friends of Alucard-Friends of Stupidity Election Committee.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
The Rabbit:
I see it every day, too, and I'm scared. When asked to back their arguments, some people in my office prefer "Well, I believe..." over "Well, I read..." When I show them places like factcheck.org and spinsanity.com they shy away from me like I've got the plague or something. What scares me is, the people I'm referring to aren't idiots, they're smart.
Maybe I was asleep when this happened, but could somebody please tell me when exactly did the American public suddenly start making decisions based on faith over hard facts? I don't recall this being the case in Clinton's time. Then again, Clinton didn't preside over the most catastrophic breakdown of intelligence in U.S. history. Could that be it?
What I'm afraid of most is this: Bush has made it clear to his constituency that it's perfectly alright to make decisions based on "gut", "instinct", and "faith". If it's OK for the president, that makes it OK for his constituency. And that scares me.
[ October 23, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Defenestraitor ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Give me a break. I see examples of outright wrong "facts" from the more left-leaning crowd here at Hatrack very frequently.
Off the top of my head:
That the corporations do not have to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax any longer.
That the activitiy related to replenishing local draft boards means that the Administration wants to reinstate the draft.
That Scalia is in favor of limiting the protection against compelled incriminating testimony.
That Fox news called the state of Florida for Bush before the polls closed.
That Republicans opposed legislation allowing any child born in the U.S. to be a citizen (or that Democrats supported such legislation).
That the U.N. has declared the invasion of Iraq somehow "illegal" or contrary to international law.
These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, and these are the ones made here, where debate is generally better informed than in public. The ones I hear outside are even more obviously wrong.
So please don't try to couch this as a conservative or Republican issue. The electorate is ill-informed as a whole.
Dagonee
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Dag, I'm agreeing with you, it's not a partisan problem. In fact I've heard those comments in my office as well. I presented the resources to both sides, and both sides were guilty of refusing to check their facts. It could mean they were just lazy, or maybe they were just desensitized by all the political advertisements, speeches, debates, and spin alley to realize there is actually a resource for learning the truth behind all that crap.
Or, maybe, and this is what I was referring to, maybe it's a symptom of a larger problem that transcends the partisan divide. Are people losing faith in facts? Is it wrong for our president to reinforce the notion that faith is a viable alternative to the truth?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
It's interesting. I think some folks are purposely ignoring facts in this election, on both sides. An entertaining example:
I am taking a class titled Elections '04. The class is entirely about this years senate races and presidential election. We cover all the information to get an unbiased view of what is going on. My professor is the former chief legal advisor for Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) but he does a pretty good job of keeping things unbiased.
Despite the fact that we cover all the information to ascertain the truth of what is going on, a gentleman in the class (he is probably 45 or so) remains certain that the following are true:
George Bush has a law sitting on his desk ready to be signed that will allow a draft of all men and women age 16 to 45.
George Bush is currently being sued by the US military for not completing his national guard duty.
Barak Obama is a republican.
John Kerry is related to Ted Kennedy.
John Kerry wants to immediately pull all our troops out of Iraq.
And finally, there is no such person as Osama Bin Laden.
No matter what facts are shown to this man, he will not alter his views on these things. I know this is an extreme example, but there are other students in the class with ridiculous views on current events as well, who behave with the same attitude. (this guy is just the funniest to me, theres no tellin what he will say next)
I don't know, it just seems that you would have to either be incredibly stupid, or purposely blind yourself to facts, in order to believe some things I have recently heard people saying.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Misinformation helps conservatives. If you are chalk full of lies about the government. You are going to be distrustful of everyone and just want to keep everything exactly how it is, especially if you personally are in a stable situation.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
P-Shore,
Man, that guy sounds familiar. Holding to the same ideas no matter how ridiculous or unfounded, and unchanging in light of new information. And yet, he's taking the class! He's certainly no dummy, he's certainly interested in educating himself. And yet, he's got this strange dichotomy of character that keeps him rigidly believing those ideas, to his core. That's what I see, day in, day out. Bush's acting on faith doesn't do anything to make me feel any better. He's downright condoning this behavior. But, as Dag presented earlier, this isn't a problem caused by any political party. Seems to be across the board.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Misinformation helps conservatives. If you are chalk full of lies about the government. You are going to be distrustful of everyone and just want to keep everything exactly how it is, especially if you personally are in a stable situation.
Except conservatives don't want to keep everything exactly how it is, at least if you're talking about political conservatives.
Edit: And, of course, lies can be just as, if not more, useful in effecting change than in maintaining a status quo.
Dagonee
[ October 24, 2004, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Individual lies don't necessarily serve the status quo, but I think that a persistent culture of lies does. When there isn't anyone who you trust to tell you the truth, you can either live in a state of constant uncertainty or become aggressively apathetic about the whole deal or you can pick out people who agree with you and trust whatever they say.
The strange thing is that cognitive dissonance is a rubber band force. If you have good reason to believe in something or you have actual faith in it, it is very weak. It's when belief is weak and faith is absent but the need to believe is strong that you see cognitive dissonance really kick in. Hatred, prejudices, book burnings, etc. are the hallmarks of insecurity. Inquisitions don't happen without their perpetrators first going through an exquisition (i.e. a forced removal of doubt and questioning from their own minds).
We're going through a presidential race right now that, to me, is a good indication that democracy in our country has some major problems. The very fact that George Bush could win again (and a large part of this is how unsuited for the job his opponent it) tells me that our system of deciding who leads us is extremely flawed.
George Bush is a liar and a deceiver. His party is full of liars and deceivers. He and his administration put me in a position where I had to appologize to people because I trusted what the government was telling me about why we should go to war. (Don't give me that BS. Be honest with yourself. You know they had the deception as their intention.)
John Kerry is also (well, he's not told any baldface lies that I know of, but he's sure been deceptive) a liar and a deceiver. His party is very full of liars and deceviers.
I think that our main hope lies in the coming together of people from whatever part of the political spectrum (or n-dimensional graph) who are willing to stand up for principles, who aren't willing to be lied to, who are dedicated to the truth. A new political party may arise dedicated not to a particular set of issues, but rather towards those so rare qualities character, maturity, and responsibility in whatever form they shown themselves.
I was semi-watching the Eagles game the other day and I was thinking about how many people will boo and disagree with a call just because it's against their team or cheer and support it because it's against the other team. I don't believe in that. I'm one of those people who wants to judge it based on it merits. I think this is kind of childish when it's in the world of professional sports, but in the world of politicals it's almost criminally irresponsible.
One of my main fears is that, if there is a coming togething and acting out of these people, there will be far too few of us to make a difference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Don't give me that BS. Be honest with yourself. You know they had the deception as their intention.
Wow. Psychic much?
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Please Dag. It's rare that I'll pull this out, but if there are people who really believe that the Bush administration weren't trying to deceive people, I'm willing to say that those people have serious problem with reality.
It's like saying, in response to the speechs going from:
We're fighting al Queda. -to the next line: We have to win in Iraq to defeat our enemies. -to the next line: The terrorists are out there trying to attack us. -to the next line: We're fighting in Iraq against the people who want to harm us. -to the next line: September 11th taught us that we need to go after these people. -to the next line: We're going into Iraq to protect ourselves. -Repeat for another 10 minutes.
that they never explictly said that there were links between Iraq and al Queda, so they weren't trying to link the two.
You can take whatever formal position you want to take, but, if we're both reasonable people, we both know the truth.
[ October 25, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
McSquicky, you make good points. I noticed that throughout the moments leading to the war. It was confusing to me because it seemed as if something was wrong, but it was hard to put into words why and how.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, enjoy your view of reality. It must be nice to be so sure that someone who disagrees with both your interpretation of and designation of motive to a political speech is out of touch with reality.
Makes it nice and simple to disregard a large portion of the population, which I'm sure is convenient to you.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But isn't that the correct view of reality? I mean, how can you reconcile all of Bush's speeches connecting Iraq, WMDs, and Al Qaeda with the suggestion that Bush wasn't trying to mislead us? I've seen many of those speeches myself, from his state of the union address all the way to his debate performance, he's consistently tried to make the connection and threat appear more significant than it is - even AFTER he admited such connections did not exist to the extent most people thought.
It's good to give presidents the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence is overwhelming.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it's not. I've given another possible reading of those speeches at various times here. You can disagree with it all you want, but the instant you dismiss those advocating it as disconnected from reality or knowingly self-delusional, you're going one step to far. In fact, it sounds a lot like what people often attack in OSC's articles.
I suppose it's easier to tolerate unprovable assertions of other people's motives when you disagree with those people, huh?
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Very very little is provable. Conclusions are based on what appears to be the case based on the evidence. Sure, we can't prove the administration's motive was to decieve, but I think we can say it's very hard to come up with a believable alternate explanation for the evidence.
You say you've given an alternate explanation elsewhere - what is it?
If it's the commonly used "We were all tricked" claim, I don't think that should fly, for a couple reasons - foremost of which would be the fact that he continued to make his assertions even after the rest of us realized there were no such connections. Bush even tried to suggest that that vague, limited weapons-related activities we eventually found constituted the sort of WMD threat he claimed Iraq had. The fact is, even after we got to see the same evidence he was seeing, he consistently called it more of a threat than we could all see it was.
The only other possibility I see is that Bush actually did believe all the things he was saying - but given he's the President of the United States and someone who has access to countless expert advisors, I think it would be unfair and unrealistic of me to believe that Bush couldn't see what the rest of us average Joes saw once we looked at the evidence. Bush is, I believe, too smart for that.
[ October 25, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I disregard the opinion of a large section of the population almost as a matter of course anyway. That's remarkably easy to do if you know as much social research as I do. The American public has consistently shown itself to be on average very poor judges of just about everything. Throwing populist rhetoric at me doesn't phase me all that much. I'm confident that millions of people not only can be wrong, but, by virtue of the normal curve distribution statistics involved are actually more likely to be wrong because of the large number.
This isn't a matter of me trying to label the people who disagree with me one way of the other. This is about my belief that it is next to impossible for a reasonable person who is being honest to claim that there aren't overwhelming reasons to believe that the Bush Administration has been intentionally deceptive. This is not a classification that I use lightly, but in this case I think that the evidence is so overwhelming that it is completely justified.
edit: And, I should really include in here that I can completely understand why people would vote for George Bush in the coming election. I'm not talking about not voting for him. I'm just talking about distorting reality to such a point that you actually are comfortable saying that he and his people didn't intentionally deceive us.
[ October 25, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You say you've given an alternate explanation elsewhere - what is it?
*sigh*
Ok, I'm not interested in debating this, because it's been proven pointless time and time again here.
I'll simply post it to say that a large number of people do not believe Bush intended to deceive regarding Iraq's connection to 9/11 and al-Quaeda.
Basically, the idea is that 9/11 awakened us to the possible dangers posed by an Iraq that 1) Had WMDs or the capacity to make them (so we thought) 2) Had a brutal dictator that had no moral qualms against see large numbers killed with those weapons. This danger could be posed by Iraq supplying these weapons to terrorists who had recently shown their willingess to launch largescale attacks against purely civillian targets resulting in thousands of deaths.
It's not that Iraq contributed to 9/11, but rather that al-Quaeda now had the credentials to possibly get WMDs from Iraq, and Iraq hated us enough to possibly do it. The reports of possible meetings between operatives supported this theory much more so than "Iraq supports al-Quaeda."
This is the case as I heard from the beginning.
And Squick, it's not the case that a large number of people believing something makes it true. Rather, it's the case that dismissing opinions as you have here (and do elsewhere with much of your rhetoric) simply makes it impossible for you to be abble to effect willing change. Especially when it's patently untrue that all reasonable people who aren't fooling themselves agree with your interpretation of events. If you're comfortable with that, OK. But I really hate it when someone tries to make preemptively make their position unassailable by insulting those who might disagree with you.
Dagonee
[ October 25, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That's remarkably easy to do if you know as much social research as I do.
I find that claim interesting. EDIT: Not doubting, but just quite a claim.
[ October 25, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I try to avoid speaking to the motives or interpretations of what Bush himself says, as he is always. always, always protected at some level beneath himself by a layer of people that may or may not have acted without the knowledge of their higher ups.
However, it may be conclusively (as conclusively as anything is ever show in history) shown that many higher ups in the administration were selective in the evidence they looked at to the point of deception. Perhaps it was primarily a deception of themselves, not letting themselves see the evidence correctly, or perhaps it was conscious, but either way it was a deception which mislead the american public and the congress.
I, for instance, have never heard someone give a gloss of the aluminum tubes situation that has not included deception of one or both of the sorts I speak of above among the highest levels of Bush's administration.
Would you care to discuss what you think of that, Dagonee?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Dag,
If that was the case, why do so many Bush-backers still believe the case is that Iraq and Al Qaeda are connected? And more importantly, why didnt't Bush change his rhetoric or correct people once it became clear the people were under the impression there was a connection? He has only admitted that on rare occassion, and then only when pressued by Democrats to do so. Bush couldn't be unaware of the widely published statistics that people thought there was such a connection. Even today, Bush and Cheney are still at it. Cheney even insinuated there was a connection in the same debate in which he claimed he never said there was a connection.
We now know there was only a limited threat from Iraq - and so does Bush. When he keeps insisting there was a grave threat and Iraq's invasion was contributing to the fight against Al Qaeda, even given this knowledge, how can he not be misleading us? Your explanation doesn't account for this either.
[ October 25, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because Squick's right about lots of people being stupid. I'm not arguing that.
But is stupid people believing something were enough to make that something untrue, then nothing would be true.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I, for instance, have never heard someone give a gloss of the aluminum tubes situation that has not included deception of one or both of the sorts I speak of above among the highest levels of Bush's administration.
Would you care to discuss what you think of that, Dagonee?
Actually, I wouldn't, as it seems pointless. You've reached your conclusions; I've reached mine. I'll do you the courtesy (which you've well earned) of assuming you have thought the issue through and arrived at your conclusion based on evidence you find sufficient.
I'm not trying to prove anything - my post explaining the other meaning of Bush's case for the war provides no proof of any kind. I realize that.
I'm not trying to change minds on whether Bush lied or not. I'm trying to move past the baseless assumption that a reasonable person can't disagree on that.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about any plausible explanation that does not involve high level figures in the Bush administration deceiving themselves or intentionally deceiving the public, either on a grand degree. I would love to hear one, from anyone, yet I have not yet found a single one (and I'm often quite good at coming up with bizarre scenarios).
Posted by Altril of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I wish polititians didn't use crooked was to get in office. After all, what we need is the truth. We really don't know either of the candidates as much as we should to know if they would make good leaders. Almost like a talk show you know? Its not like you can get to know a person in less than half an hour. I just hate it when people start calling girls on stage sluts and stuff, its just not right. There is more to a person, and I feel that in out society, individuals are losing so much of their identity. I'm sure Bush is more than just the U.S. president, he's a person. What we must know is if he's intelligent enough to confront the situation and truly deliver the truth. Thats all America is asking for. The TRUTH.
P.S. I don't support Bush, I can't even vote, but I'm a democrat. I think Kerry has looked more confident in the debates than Bush. But that's just me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm sure Bush is more than just the U.S. president, he's a person."
Personally, I would prefer our presidents to be more than just people. I would, in fact, like them to be presidential.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boy, nothing gets me in the spirit of political discussion like starting from the assumption that I'm an ignorant jackass.
Next, can we ask if those who will vote for Bush still beat their wives?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And Squick, it's not the case that a large number of people believing something makes it true. Rather, it's the case that dismissing opinions as you have here (and do elsewhere with much of your rhetoric) simply makes it impossible for you to be abble to effect willing change. Especially when it's patently untrue that all reasonable people who aren't fooling themselves agree with your interpretation of events. If you're comfortable with that, OK. But I really hate it when someone tries to make preemptively make their position unassailable by insulting those who might disagree with you.
Yeah, I'm not really sure that I use what I would consider rhetoric here all that much. And here, I'm not tying to gain some sort of unassailable high ground by saying what I did. I'm reflecting my beliefs that I've come to after rigorous examination. Basically, as I've said, I believe, based on what I think are overwhelming reasons, that it is next to impossible for a reasonable person to honestly believe that the Bush administration has not in many cases been intentionally deceptive. I am confident enough in that that I'm willing to treat it as equivilent to a statement of fact.
Even now, I don't actually believe that you don't believe that the Bush administration hasn't been intentionally deceptive, even if that's the position that you're defending. However, if you actually do, you and I live in different world where the realities governing our impressions of this don't intersect. As such, what you and I call reason are different things and I have no idea what conclusions you are going to come to next. This is on the level of, when presenting with accurate astological data, one of us claiming that the sun goes around the earth and the other claiming that tis the other way round. There can be no rational reconciliation of our views.
I'm not trying to win an argument with this here. I've more or less ceded the intention to even argue.
---
Oh, and it doesn't really fit, but I'm too taken with it to not put this in. With the OSC thing, you're saying the because I don't like violence in cartoons, I must also be for banning Michelangelo's David. I disagree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:With the OSC thing, you're saying the because I don't like violence in cartoons, I must also be for banning Michelangelo's David. I disagree.
I can't even imagine what you're attempting to say here.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Simpson's reference.
edit: I think I may have an ear infection, so I might be a little loopy lately. Of course, on a board that supports Thor, among others, I don't think that should be that big a problem.
[ October 26, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So this is just a joke, not something I should respond to with anything but puns?
In that case, I don't think you've established the bare facts needed to sling this kind of statement around.
[ October 26, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No I meant it seriously, more or less. I think that there are very important differences in the things that you were declaring the same. Although, yeah, I guess it was mostly for my own amusement and as further proof that there is an appopriate Simpson's quote for any situation you find yourself in.
One thing I don't think you've gotten about me yet is that I don't just say crap, except when I forget myself. I'm pretty deliberate and (I think) rigorous. When I said this, it wasn't a rhetorical position that I was adopting. It's an honest reflection of how I really think. I really don't think that the claim that the Bush administration was intentionally deceptive needs to be defended as it is self-evident from a reasonable, honest examination of the evidence. There are very few things that I'd make this claim for.
edit: And like I've said, I don't think we could have a reasonable conversation between the position I firmly believe in and the one you're representing. At best, we'd have a replay of the Galileo conversation.
[ October 26, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:One thing I don't think you've gotten about me yet is that I don't just say crap, except when I forget myself.
I have no idea why you would think I think this.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know what, I think we'd better drop this.
quote: I don't actually believe that you don't believe that the Bush administration hasn't been intentionally deceptive, even if that's the position that you're defending.
quote:One thing I don't think you've gotten about me yet is that I don't just say crap, except when I forget myself.
quote:And like I've said, I don't think we could have a reasonable conversation between the position I firmly believe in and the one you're representing.
I'm getting awfully tired of responding to posts that blithely assume I mean something contrary to what I've actually said or for which there is no possible textual basis in my posts. It's one thing when someone misunderstands something I've posted, whether because I stated it badly or because they interpreted it badly. It's another to simply impute opinions to me because you feel like it.
Please stop doing that.
Dagonee
[ October 26, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because of your reactions, like telling me that I obviously don't understand why people do things, or your response here and on the OSC attacks thread, or in various other places.
I'm not a particulary nice person when I'm posting here. I'm not all that personable. The only reputation that I've pursued is that I'm someone who, when he is serious, is stone serious about things, who restricts himself to talking only things that he knows about, and who can always, always back up what he says.
Maybe you get this about me. I don't know that you did.
edit: I'm fine with dropping this. As I said, I don't expect any good to come out of it. Just one thing I want to emphasize. I wasn't trying to score rhetorical points. Those were more or less accurate representations of what I think. That's why they're there.
second edit: Ok, dropping it right after this that is. Dag, you've come across to me as a very weak Bush supporter. I quite honestly thought you were about as disgusted by the dishonesty of the Bush administration and campaigns as I was. I don't know if I intend that as an apology or a question or a heads up or what, but there you go.
[ October 26, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Among the outright "falsehoods" Dag claims the left wing has posted at Hatrack was the following
quote:That the U.N. has declared the invasion of Iraq somehow "illegal" or contrary to international law.
Whether that is true or false depends on how you define the UN. Is it the charter, the resolutions, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the secrerary General or all of the above?
Kofi Annon, UN secretary general, did indeed declare that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to international law. The UN charter and numerous resolution define this type of action as illegal.
The Security Council has not declared it illegal, largely because the US and Britain both have the power to veto such a declaration.
The statement is perhaps not insufficiently specific but it is not incorrect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kofi Annon, UN secretary general, did indeed declare that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to international law.
Annon has no power to declare something contrary to international law - he is expressing an opinion, which might be given more deference because of his position, but has no more force than mine or yours.
quote:The UN charter and numerous resolution define this type of action as illegal.
No, the UN charter contains clauses that some have said make this war contrary to international law. Just as you can't say for sure that the constitution defines a particular law as unconstitutional until a court rules on that issue, no matter what some lawyers may say about the issue, you can't say that the Charter declares a particular use of force to be in violation of international law. There have been several analyses done showing the invasion to be in accord with the Charter; there have been several analyses done showing it to be contrary to the Charter. As of this date, no higher authority than the lawyers who drafted those analyses has ruled on them. you might as well say that a lawyer filing a complaint proves that the defendant was negligent.
quote:he Security Council has not declared it illegal, largely because the US and Britain both have the power to veto such a declaration.
The statement is perhaps not insufficiently specific but it is not incorrect.
The statement is absolutely incorrect. It's claiming authority for a legal opinion that does not, and can not, exist. It's the exact kind of statement of fact that gets bandied about by both sides with no consideration for the realities of the situation.
Dagonee
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
The Rabbit:
I finally found the courage to dive back into this thread and saw your thoughtful response to my questions back on page 2. Thanks.
----
quote:Individual lies don't necessarily serve the status quo, but I think that a persistent culture of lies does. When there isn't anyone who you trust to tell you the truth, you can either live in a state of constant uncertainty or become aggressively apathetic about the whole deal or you can pick out people who agree with you and trust whatever they say.
I know that a popular, seemingly-reasoned argument to make is that political discourse has always been vitrolic and that politicians have always lied and been corrupt [c.f. Andrew Jackson, the whole Aaron Burr thing, etc.].
That may indeed be the case.
But I think that what makes our current climate so troubling to me is that politicians and the media have so much money and so much reach -- unpredented even [yes, I realize that there have been empires in the past with greater military dominance (actually maybe not) and bureacratic reach -- I'm talking on the level of image and discourse here] -- and yet at the same time they've squandered so much of their credibility and broken public trust.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
When Bush calls Iran part of an axis of evil, it is not incorrect to say the U.S. has called Iran part of an axis of evil. It may not be the entire U.S. government, or the legislature, but it is a representative of the U.S.
The same goes for Annan. His opinion may not represent the complete government of the U.N. or binding legal authority, but he can speak as chief representative of the U.N. just as Bush can speak as chief representative of the U.S. Thus his statements carry significantly more authority than yours or mine.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, You're not paying attention to contexts here. George Bush said that Iran was a part of the axis of evil in an official context. Kofi Annan said that the war in Iraq was illegal in a personal context. He doesn't have the authority to say that in an official context in regards to the U.N. The best he can offer is his arguably well-informed personal opinion, which he did. There's a huge difference between him saying this as a guy who also happens to be the Secretary General of the U.N. and him officially speaking for the U.N.
[ October 26, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
quote: Basically, as I've said, I believe, based on what I think are overwhelming reasons, that it is next to impossible for a reasonable person to honestly believe that the Bush administration has not in many cases been intentionally deceptive.
--Mr. Squicky
Speaking as someone who has been mostly ivory towerish . . .
From the beginning I have been a uncomfortable with the war in Iraq. But I have grudgingly trusted in the leadership that we have because I haven't come up with a plausible motive for deception. Why would a person or group of people have wanted war in Iraq badly enough to make it happen without being able to justify it with truth? Why go to all the effort to deceive the nation and the world? Deception on that scale involves a massive amount of effort as well as a substantial amount of risk (one would hope). What is the payoff?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Squicky, Fair enough.
Bebe, I think the idea is that they thought the war was right for reason A, but knew the American people and world would consider going to war for reason A wrong. So they came up with reason B, which everyone would accept, even though reason A was what they really wanted.
The payoff is they got to do what they felt was right.
In this case, I suspect reason A is "to spread the American way in Iraq and protect our own interests there" and reason B is "to elimate the terrorist WMD threat in Iraq." I think the neoconservatives really wanted imperialism, but knew we all wouldn't agree, so they fashioned the WMD argument as the main idea instead.
This is not to say they weren't convinced WMDs were in Iraq. But it does give them reason to overstate that WMD threat, and look for every excuse to go to war before other options are considered (like letting the U.N. finish its job).
[ October 26, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bebe, There are multiple plausible motives for them going to war in Iraq, not the least of which is that three of the high ranking members, including the Vice-President, of the Bush administration are public members of a group of neo-conservatives called The Project For A New American Century that has publicly stated that they want America to take a more militarily aggressive role in the world and that had the invasion of Iraq high on its wish list.
If the U.S. were greeted by an overwhelming majority of the Iraqis as liberators, which was a result the members of the administration said they expected prior to the invasion, it would have been political gold. A successful Iraq war that led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a working Iraqi democracy would have been a great thing for the world and would have carried George Bush into a second term easily while also possibly increasing the Republican hold on Congress.
Also, after 9/11, it is important to the country to be fighting somebody. The organized fighting in Afghanistan had ended and the much more problematic stage of post-war reconstruction was starting. If the state of things there as they are now were the most prominent face of the War On Terror, it would be politically very damaging. Also damaging was that we hadn't captured or killed Osama bin Laden, who had been set up as the Head Bad Guy.
And that's leaving aside all the other motives, political and economic, that accompany the U.S. going to war.
This is not to say that their motives were all self-serving. Any action takes place in a complex web of motives. I've no doubt there were also admirable motives in the mix when they made their decisions nor that many of these negative motives would be contributing factors in any President's decisions about Iraq. The thing I'm taking exception to was not necessarily their motives, which may even have been mostly good, but rather that they set out to intentionally deceive me. If they had the purest motives in the world, I'd still have a big problem with the means that they took to achieve their ends. You don't get to lie to me and have me be happy about it.
Also, I think it's important that when I said that they were intentionally deceptive, I wasn't talking just about the Iraq War, although I think this is one of the worst cases of it. There are plenty of other cases were it's pretty clear that the Bush administration have been intentionally deceptive starting at least as soon as Republican primaries in 2000. Unless you think that dirty tricks like asking people how they would feel about John McCain if they found out he had an illegitimate black child (which is only the most obviously reprehensible thing that campaign did) had any other purpose than to deceive.
[ October 26, 2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
Thanks Tres and Mr. S. Interesting responses both. This is from Cheney's organization: New American Century.
The possible motives listed in your responses seem to me to be totally inadequate. If they were the driving motives I could understand the need to resort to deception by individuals not committed to honesty.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My thinking is this.
There are many people who have questions about the war in Iraq, and they are not just the Democratic politicians and thier flunkies and minions. There are lots of strange conspiracy theories in this country, and they blossom faster in others.
This is bad for the US's image and economy.
Why do these questions and fears persist?
Is it because the Democrats have been so crafty in creating them? I've seen 0 evidence for that.
Is it because the President has held one of the most secretive administrations ever, keeping information so tight that it cries in pain?
Defenders of the President say, "You can't know Why he did things or What he was thinking."
They are right.
But what we can know, so we can make a reasonable decision, is so convoluted or missing that all these theories seem to make about as much sense.
We have been kept in the dark, tricked and swindled (the Drug Restriction Plan we are paying for, the Tax Cuts that balanced only when they were allowed to expire, but now are not being allowed to expire) etc by politicians for so long we will believe anything bad about any of them.
Perhaps an honest truthful person would have no chance to remain in office. I'd be willing to give them a shot though.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)