Bush Supporters Largely Uninformed

[Spence]

You guessed it, didn't you? Now a new University of Maryland study demonstrates it to be true.Supporters of President Bush are less knowledgeable about the president's foreign policy positions and are more likely to be mistaken about factual issues in world affairs than voters who back John F. Kerry, a survey released yesterday indicated.

A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight terrorism."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the Sept. 11 Commission found no evidence of substantial Iraqi support for Al Qaeda, and international public opinion polls have shown widespread opposition to Bush's reelection.

In contrast, among Kerry supporters polled only 26 percent think Iraq had such weapons, 30 percent say Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda, and 1 percent said foreign public opinion favors Bush.

The polls results, said Steven Kull, the head of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey, showed that Americans are so polarized two weeks before the election that many lack even a common understanding of the facts.

"It is rather unique the extent to which we have different perceptions of reality," Kull said.

On other international issues, the survey found that around 70 percent of Bush supporters responding believe that the president supports participation in the land mine treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and a narrower majority believes he supports the International Criminal Court and Kyoto Accords. In fact, Bush opposes all four treaties.

Kerry supporters correctly identified their candidate's position on every foreign policy issue in the survey except defense spending. Only 43 percent of the Democrat's supporters know he wants to keep the Pentagon budget at the same level rather than cut or expand it.

The survey was conducted in three waves, Sept. 3-7, Sept. 8-12, and Oct. 12-18, by the polling firm Knowledge Networks. The poll's margin of error is between 3.2 and 4 percent.

Kull said it is common for voters to tailor their views on particular issues to those of the candidate they favor overall, but the extent to which Bush supporters are filtering out news from Iraq that might reflect poorly on the president is unprecedented.

According to the survey, the difference doesn't reflect lack of access to information about Iraq.

The poll found that perceptions did not vary significantly by level of education among those who plan to vote for Bush.

And many of the Bush voters surveyed knew that the Duelfer report said Hussein had no WMDs, but continue to believe that he did regardless.Source (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/10/22/divide_seen_in_voter_knowledge?mode=PF)

[lakewinola]

Blind faith in your leaders will get you killed.

[skinsfan44]

:rolleyes:

Look at the bottom of the artical.

It says "A New York Times Company."

It is you liberals who are "uninformed."

Y'all are still believing in the lies that rag spews.

And don't get me started with the U of MD's liberal views.

[Spence]

Pretty weak. The NY Times, which owns the Boston Globe, just reported the story. Find the story in any other news outlet, the facts don't change. And MD is overrun with liberals? That's funny. I'm an alumnus and I never noticed that. But, of course, you don't have anything to contradict the study, you just decide it can't be true because it is not what you want to believe.

Skinsfan44, you just proved that study correct.

[thickskin]

bush folks also tend to me more racist. not that that should surprise anyone.

[Spence]

bush folks also tend to me more racist. not that that should surprise anyone.I have not noticed any Bush voters in here who are racists. [I'm not counting crackpots like jimmbobbb or il*vebush. No candidate or his/her supporters should be judged by the antics of their craziest fringe.]

[akhhorus]

I have not noticed any Bush voters in here who are racists. [I'm not counting crackpots like jimmbobbb or il*vebush. No candidate or his/her supporters should be judged by the antics of their craziest fringe.]

I want everyone to notice, that Spence is so anti-Bush, that he cannot possibly write: "I love Bush". At least, not in a political sense.

[Spence]

I want everyone to notice, that Spence is so anti-Bush, that he cannot possibly write: "I love Bush". At leats, not in a political sense.No, I can't. I simply cannot do it. I think this is the worst administration the country has ever had. Or, at least, as bad as Franklin Pierce.

[akhhorus]

No, I can't. I simply cannot do it. I think this is the worst administration the country has ever had. Or, at least, as bad as Franklin Pierce.

Oh come on. William Henry Harrison died after a month in office.

[Spence]

Oh come on. William Henry Harrison died after a month in office.That means he didn't have long to screw things up. How about his poor wife, though? She didn't even have time to travel to D.C. before her husband kicked the bucket.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I know the results of that poll hold true at my school. And that's not just my personal, Kerry-supporting opinion, both Kerry and Bush supporters have agreed with me (and even brought it up a few times) in the past couple of weeks. It's kind of sad, really.

[Minnesota Mike]

Oh come on. William Henry Harrison died after a month in office.

Something like that might have been the best contribution Bush could have made to this country.

Oh, wait. Never mind. That would have left us with Dick as President. That would have been MUCH worse.

Actually it probably wouldn't have changed anything.

[Jimskin]

I printed a copy to show my "Bush supporter" friends here in NE GA. Thanks!

[thickskin]

I have not noticed any Bush voters in here who are racists. [I'm not counting crackpots like jimmbobbb or il*vebush. No candidate or his/her supporters should be judged by the antics of their craziest fringe.]

obviously people aren't going to out themselves by parading their prejudices on the internet, but i assure you, spend enough time with some of these rural southern ultraconservative godfearers and they will simply shock you. and call them legion. but those are just my observations of people acting like idiots. Mahzarin Banaji, famous social psychologist, has developed an interestin measure of unconscious preferences called the IAT and in a talk given on weds said that recent data, obviously not yet in press, show a statistically significant discrepancy between bush and kerry supporters' degree of preference for white over black. try it out for yourselves.
http://www.implicit.harvard.edu
just click demonstrations and go to the race IAT. takes about 10 mins but is fun. there's also an IAT for bush v. kerry. i show a slight preference for bush,so this is all to be taken with a grain of salt surely.

[GibbsRules!]

Mahzarin Banaji, famous social psychologist, has developed an interestin measure of unconscious preferences called the IAT and in a talk given on weds said that recent data, obviously not yet in press, show a statistically significant discrepancy between bush and kerry supporters' degree of preference for white over black. try it out for yourselves.
http://www.implicit.harvard.edu
just click demonstrations and go to the race IAT. takes about 10 mins but is fun. there's also an IAT for bush v. kerry. i show a slight preference for bush,so this is all to be taken with a grain of salt surely.
Right on the nail. Interesting. I went in with a slight preference for Kerry and that was the end result. (but they asked that in a questionaire before the test)

[Jimskin]

As a NE Georgian.....I'M SHOCKED!! Please continue...

[BSMKF]

You guessed it, didn't you? Now a new University of Maryland study demonstrates it to be true.Source (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/10/22/divide_seen_in_voter_knowledge?mode=PF)



Before September 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.

The President continued:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

This is why we went to war in the spring of 2003.

We did not go to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but to prevent Saddam from retaining the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and provide them to his terrorist allies: Abu Nidal, Abu Abas, Abu al-Zarqawi, Yasser Arafat. The joint congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq and passed by majorities in both political parties, Democrats as well as Republicans and John Kerry and John Edwards in particular, has 23 "whereas" clauses articulating the rationale for the use of force. Only one of the 23 focuses on weapons of mass destruction – that is on actual stockpiles of WMDs rather than the programs to develop them (once the UN inspectors were gone).

However, twelve of the clauses refer to Saddam's violation of 16 UN resolutions – resolutions which constituted the terms of the truce in the 1991 Gulf War, and which most commentators on the war seem to have forgotten. For those who have indeed forgotten, these are the facts: We have been continuously at war with Saddam Hussein since 1990. The conflict in 1990 was caused by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and was ended by a ceasefire, not a peace. The terms of the truce were embodied in UN resolutions 687 and 689. Fourteen subsequent UN resolutions were designed to compel Saddam to adhere to the terms of this truce which he continually violated but which the UN and the Clinton administration failed to enforce.

Thus, it was Saddam Hussein's violation of these 16 resolutions and a 17th – Resolution 1441, a final ultimatum – that caused us to go to war. The presentation to the UN by Colin Powell about laboratories for producing weapons of mass destruction, which was the only significant White House presentation of such a case – took place after the decision to go to war was made. The presentation was made to satisfy Tony Blair, who was under attack from his own anti-American appeasers. The equivalent of 4 million American leftists – most from his own party – had recently poured into the streets of London in an attempt to save the Iraqi dictatorship. Powell's presentation to the UN was not the justification for the war. It was a misguided attempt to sway the UN Security Council, which couldn’t be swayed because France and Russia, two Saddam allies, had vetos on the Council. The justification for the war is contained in the 23 clauses in the congressional authorization and even more specifically in UN resolution 1441.

UN Resolution 1441 called on Saddam Hussein to disarm and to provide an accounting for the disposition of all weapons of mass destruction that the UN inspectors had already identified. A deadline of December 7 was given for Iraq to comply with resolution or face "serious consequences." In his book Disarming Iraq, chief UN inspector Hans Blix declares that this resolution was diplomatic language for a war ultimatum and that Saddam failed to meet the terms of the ultimatum. That was why we went to war.

We went to war because we could not maintain 200,000 troops in the desert indefinitely while Saddam played games with the UN inspectors. We went to war because 17 defied UN resolutions had made the word of the UN and the United States meaningless – an extremely dangerous situation in itself. Here is how Bill Clinton justified the use of force to remove Saddam in 1998, when he expelled the UN inspectors: “If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

We went to war against Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003, because to withdraw the 200,000 troops without a war and without Saddam’s capitulation to the UN demands would be a catastrophic defeat for the forces of freedom and peace. It would mean with absolute certainty that Saddam would reactivate the weapons programs he had launched and spent more than 40 billion dollars to implement before the United States obstructed them. Saddam was in the process of negotiating an off-the-shelf purchase of nuclear weapons from North Korea, in fact, when the United States entered Iraq to remove him.

The leaders of the Democratic Party have betrayed the war they signed onto and in the process have misled the American people about the nature of the war and of the post-war struggle. That is, they have misled the American people about the War on Terror. In doing so they have gravely damaged our efforts to fight this war, sapped our will to resist, and softened us up for the kill.

The administration did not justify the war in terms of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Here is the only reference to al-Qaeda out of 23 clauses justifying the war in the congressional authorization for the use of force, which was supported by a majority of Democrats and Republicans:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

The Left doesn't care about the facts of the war, or about defending America against its Islamic enemies – because for the Left America is guilty before the facts. It is guilty in its very nature as the Great Satan himself.

"Supposedly we went to war to establish democracy. But in truth we have still done little to grant 'full sovereignty' to Iraq, and much to keep the country under our control." First, the Iraqi people have more sovereignty now than they did under Saddam Hussein or any regime in Iraq of the last 5,000 years. Second, we have already shown our good intentions in Afghanistan by holding the first real elections there since the beginning of time. Anyone who does not believe that America is guilty before the fact understands this. There is only one alternative to American authority in Iraq and that is the authority of Muqtada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Since America is the only authority in the world with the ability and the will to oppose them, to call for “full sovereignty” now is to invite the rule of the beheaders and the torturers.


The UN has done nothing positive in its entire history in regard to peace or peacekeeping that the United States has not done for it. When the United States (under Bill Clinton) was absent from the massacres in Rwanda, the UN could not raise 5,000 troops to save the lives of a million Tutsis. The UN is a moral cesspool. Its Human Rights Commission is run by Libya. Ten days before 9/11 its Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, hosted a hate-fest in South Africa, whose agenda was drawn up in Iran and whose targets of opportunity were the world’s most humane and tolerant democracies: the United States, Britain and Israel.

In Iraq, the UN secretariat has colluded in the theft of $10 billion earmarked to feed Iraqi children. Instead, the UN officials fed the dictator in Baghdad, and the French, Russian and British political figures he needed to bribe. And, of course, themselves. The UN fled Iraq the first time a bomb blew up in its face. The call for the UN to preside over the Iraqi future without the United States to provide it with moral judgment and military means is simply a call to return Iraq to the control of the Islamic predators who have already raped Iraq and want to destroy us.

By destroying the tradition of bipartisanship in war, by betraying a war policy they signed onto, and by conducting a scorched earth campaign against their own commander-in-chief, the Democratic Party has opened the public square to a political zoo of America hating radicals. Personified in such figures as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, their agenda is exactly the same as it was during the Cold War and the war in Vietnam: to demoralize our troops, to sap the will of our citizenry, to weaken our ability to stay the course and resist, and to soften us up for the kill.

Article by D Horowitz

[rskinsfan10]

BSMKF,

This is the second thread tonight in which you have seemingly quoted D Horowitz.

You need to provide links to both, and condense them also as to not post the entire articles if you have done so.

[SkinsD]

No, I can't. I simply cannot do it. I think this is the worst administration the country has ever had. Or, at least, as bad as Franklin Pierce.
Agreed.

[Spence]

We're quoting David Horowitz??? David Horowitz??? I guess if Joe McCarthy is dead you have to go with what's left. :rolleyes: