• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Voters wrong about Iraq (This one's for you, ToxicAdam)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Since you asked.
John Kerry said:
Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?
ToxicAdam said:
I'd like to see that poll and where Kerry got that number from.
I don't know what he's using, or if those are solid numbers at all. However, it's pretty well-accepted that a very large chunk Bush's votes came from people who were mistaken on several important facts about the Iraq issue.

The most-cited sources are this Harris poll and this PIPA poll. Both seem to have been released on 10/21/05. The basics are the same: Many Americans were wrong about Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda, Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and the presence (or even use) of WMD's. Those that were wrong tilted heavily towards Bush.

The GOP won't hammer Kerry on this, since the Downing Street memo just isn't creating a lot of buzz, and they'd just be pushing it towards the front page. The 77 percent figure could very well be pulled out of his ass.

Still, the important thing is this: In the last presidential election, a very large segment of voters were simply wrong about the facts regarding the primary issue during the campaign. The winning candidate relied on public ignorance about his most important piece of policy, and would not have won if those votes didn't count.

Does this bother anyone on the GOP side of the fence?
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
If anyone gave a fuck, they would have given a fuck several years ago, when this bullshit was clearly evident and accepted. Its irrelevant now. Whats done is done.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Kerry makes a direct logic leap. Saying that Saddam had "connections" (which is too vague a term) equals that he is directly responsible for 9/11, is a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say?

I looked through both references, and didn't see a direct number stating " 77 percent (of Bush supporters) think Saddam did 9/11". A clear majority of Republicans in 2004 did think that Saddam had WMD's and had provided financial support to Al Queda operatives. No doubt about that. Alot of that was due to the reports that the British intelligence filed and also the administration holding the same view . Not an excuse, but that's the reality.


The Harris poll is interesting. In it, you find this:

37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis.

41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

Of course, these were randomly phoned people. It tells me that 4 out of 10 people don't even know basic facts about 9/11.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
Kerry makes a direct logic leap. Saying that Saddam had "connections" (which is too vague a term) equals that he is directly responsible for 9/11 is a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say?

I looked through both references, and didn't see a direct number stating " 77 percent (of Bush supporters) think Saddam did 9/11". A clear majority of Republicans in 2004 did think that Saddam had WMD's and had provided financial support to Al Queda operatives. No doubt about that. Alot of that was due to the reports that the British intelligence filed and also the administration holding the same view . Not an excuse, but that's the reality.


The Harris poll is interesting. In it, you find this:

37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis.

41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

Of course, these were randomly phoned people. It tells me that 4 out of 10 people don't even know basic facts about 9/11.

And given that number, a significant proportion of the population affected the outcome of the last presidential election on the basis of irresponsibly falsified information.

IMPEACHMENT!
 

MC Safety

Member
See, here's the problem: The information on Iraqi weaponry could have easily been clarified if Iraq had simply adhered to the UN resolutions established after the first Gulf War.

It seems to me the matter of weapons of mass destruction is a very convenient way to divert attention from the real issue. Saddam Hussein understood that one of the penalties for non-compliance of the UN resolutions was resumption of hostilities.

It's genuinely unfortunate the intelligence was wrong and perhaps even manufactured by zealots seeking aggressive action against Iraq. It does not alter, in any way, the fact that Iraq was noncompliant.
 

Do The Mario

Unconfirmed Member
ToxicAdam said:
A clear majority of Republicans in 2004 did think that Saddam had WMD's and had provided financial support to Al Queda operatives. No doubt about that. Alot of that was due to the reports that the British intelligence filed and also the administration holding the same view . Not an excuse, but that's the reality.



The bush administration fabricated intelligence on Iraq WMD, they took CIA reports and twisted them to say what they wanted, and when key CIA figures and UN weapons inspectors spoke out they were accused of “Drinking Saddams Kool Aid” by the media.
 
Adhered to what resolution? The resolution that stated every weapon needs to be destroyed and progress on current weapons halted?

They did, iirc, besides the usual Saddam posturing to scare Iran. Plus, whatever weapons were around during GWI, certainly weren't around after the conclusion. How many UN inspection teams does it take coming back empty handed before the realization sets in that maybe, maybe they don't have any weapons.

Of course, disregard this if you're referring to any other UN resolution.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Do The Mario said:
The bush administration fabricated intelligence on Iraq WMD, they took CIA reports and twisted them to say what they wanted, and when key CIA figures and UN weapons inspectors spoke out they were accused of “Drinking Saddams Kool Aid” by the media.



So the Bush administration fabricated British Intelligence reports (which were confirmed by the Blair administration)? This is what you are saying?
 

MC Safety

Member
Incognito said:
Adhered to what resolution? The resolution that stated every weapon needs to be destroyed and progress on current weapons halted?

They did, iirc, besides the usual Saddam posturing to scare Iran. Plus, whatever weapons were around during GWI, certainly weren't around after the conclusion. How many UN inspection teams does it take coming back empty handed before the realization sets in that maybe, maybe they don't have any weapons.

Of course, disregard this if you're referring to any other UN resolution.

Disregarded. Even on the basic issue of inspections, Iraq was noncompliant.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Have we forgotten already the numerous times that Saddam's people either forced out, or restricted inspectors from doing their jobs?
 

Macam

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
So the Bush administration fabricated British Intelligence reports (which were confirmed by the Blair administration)? This is what you are saying?

I'm not going to speak for Do The Mario, but given that to date the Downing Street Memo has not been discredited by anyone (though Blair danced around the question and Bush resorted to the same old lines), it's becoming increasingly apparent that the British administration may have done some fabricating of their own.
 

Do The Mario

Unconfirmed Member
Incognito said:
Adhered to what resolution? The resolution that stated every weapon needs to be destroyed and progress on current weapons halted?

They did, iirc, besides the usual Saddam posturing to scare Iran. Plus, whatever weapons were around during GWI, certainly weren't around after the conclusion. How many UN inspection teams does it take coming back empty handed before the realization sets in that maybe, maybe they don't have any weapons.

Of course, disregard this if you're referring to any other UN resolution.


The Great thing is that when the Administration Talked about an Iraqi chemical “stockpiles” many of the agents they discussed only had a shelf life of 3 months to a year.

Hans Blix and other inspectors said it was impossible for Iraq to have stockpile America claimed it had due to the nature of the chemicals to start with.
 
Remember the aluminum tubes argument?

:lol :lol

"They recently recieved a shipment of aluminum tubes -- that means only one thing! They're going nuclear, baby!!!"
 

Dilbert

Member
Disco Stu said:
It seems to me the matter of weapons of mass destruction is a very convenient way to divert attention from the real issue. Saddam Hussein understood that one of the penalties for non-compliance of the UN resolutions was resumption of hostilities.
Why was it the "real issue" for that exact moment in history, and why was it the "real issue" for the United States to initiate military action almost completely on its own?

More to the point, if Iraq was being non-compliant with a UN resolution, and the UN didn't choose to take action, how can the United States' actions be justified under international law? And if the real reason to start a war with Iraq was to enforce the UN resolution, then why weren't the American people told the truth, rather than emphasizing the threat of "WMDs" and "terrorism," neither of which were justified claims?
 

MC Safety

Member
Incognito said:
Remember the aluminum tubes argument?

:lol :lol

"They recently recieved a shipment of aluminum tubes -- that means only one thing! They're going nuclear, baby!!!"

Again, specific examples of misinterpreted data are regrettable, but do not change the basic issue.
 
Misinterpret? No, they were specifically told on numerous occasions how baseless their aluminum tubes argument was by leading agencies, including the IAEA. In one specific meeting, a US ambassador was laughed out of the room for presenting that case.
 
Slurpy said:
If anyone gave a fuck, they would have given a fuck several years ago, when this bullshit was clearly evident and accepted. Its irrelevant now. Whats done is done.
It can be argued that polysci can't be studied without history. For instance: the relatively recent battles over where to ship out Bolivia's natural gas. The closest way out to the sea would be through Chile. But wait a sec... what about the old maps of Bolivia showing Bolivia having a coastline? What happened to it? Lost to Chile in the War of the Pacific. The loss of the land remains a highly emotional issue in Bolivia. Thus, this adds another factor to discussions regarding the exportation of natural gas.

Now about history for history's sake: just observe the efforts spent fighting over how history is interpreted and taught.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
ToxicAdam: I'm not defending Kerry or the 77% figure here. Read the original post.

The Harris and PIPA polls don't just show that a large segment of the US was ignorant about Iraq. They show that Bush supporters were very significantly more ignorant than Kerry supporters. They show that the people who botched these facts delivered the election for Bush.

Remember that these polls came out in October of 2004, after Hanx Blix found nothing, after David Kay found nothing, after Charles Duelfer found nothing. This is after the United States government announced its official position that Saddam had neither WMD stockpiles nor programs to make them, and hadn't for over a decade.

This is not about the Bush administration's use or misuse of intelligence before the war, but about widespread ignorance among the American public over a year and a half into the war. Ignorance that was correlated to electoral preference, and influenced an election.

Does Kerry using a 77% figure instead of a 52% figure really bother you more than the reality of what that number represents?


Disco Stu: I'm not an expert on the original UN resolution, but was under the impression that Iraqi noncompliance would lead to a continuance of the sanctions, which happened. Also, the idea that the US government did this because of the UN (in any way) doesn't pass the laugh test.
 

MC Safety

Member
-jinx- said:
Why was it the "real issue" for that exact moment in history, and why was it the "real issue" for the United States to initiate military action almost completely on its own?

More to the point, if Iraq was being non-compliant with a UN resolution, and the UN didn't choose to take action, how can the United States' actions be justified under international law? And if the real reason to start a war with Iraq was to enforce the UN resolution, then why weren't the American people told the truth, rather than emphasizing the threat of "WMDs" and "terrorism," neither of which were justified claims?

First, as I've stated before, the information from Iraq could have very easily been clarified if Iraq had allowed inspections as per the UN resolutions. It is also unfortunate the White House chose to use weapons of mass destruction as its rallying cry; perhaps this was done because the average U.S. citizen cares not one whit for the UN and its resolutions.

Now. You may argue that because the UN withdrew its support from action against Iraq, that this destroyed the mandate it created with its resolutions. I understand this perfectly, but do not agree with it. In my opinion, the mandate was created by the UN and exists regardless of whether or not support for it fades.

I do not wish to discuss this matter further. I do not favor any sort of shenanigans when it comes to doctoring information or misleading the public, but simply do not have enough information to gauge the scope and nature of the government's misdoings (if indeed there are any). However, the laundry list of Iraq's offenses since the termination of hostilities in the Gulf War is extensive, and a very solid case can be made for the U.S' invasion...
 

MC Safety

Member
Mandark said:
Disco Stu: I'm not an expert on the original UN resolution, but was under the impression that Iraqi noncompliance would lead to a continuance of the sanctions, which happened. Also, the idea that the US government did this because of the UN (in any way) doesn't pass the laugh test.

Ah, if only Carrot Top were here. He'd bring the funny.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Mandark said:
ToxicAdam: I'm not defending Kerry or the 77% figure here. Read the original post.

The Harris and PIPA polls don't just show that a large segment of the US was ignorant about Iraq. They show that Bush supporters were very significantly more ignorant than Kerry supporters. They show that the people who botched these facts delivered the election for Bush.

The fact that Republicans still hold onto beliefs, even after they are proven wrong by independent studies, should come as no surprise to you. It's not really shocking to me.


Does Kerry using a 77% figure instead of a 52% figure really bother you more than the reality of what that number represents?
.


Here's the crux of my arguement. The actual number of Bush supporters that believe that Saddam had a DIRECT link to 9/11 is only 20% (Page 7 of the PIPA poll). Not 77% ... not 52%. That is what raised my ire in the other thread. Kerry threw out that 77% number by making a leap in logic. Not based on any facts.

The Harris poll then goes to show that 40% of the average Americans believed that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11. So, obviously this isn't a "party" issue (ignorance about 9/11 and the Iraq War) But rather, this is a "people" issue.



I appreciate that you took the time to post these polls, they are very interesting.


Edit: Overall, I get your point. Bush's cohorts misrepresented the reasons for going to war. He then used these reasons to leverage a win last November. The majority of Republican voters still believed in "facts" that were never proven.

Although the Pipa poll shows that 58% of the Bush supporters said they would not back a war, (if they knew ahead of time that there were no WMD's AND no ties to Al Queda), it then doesn't ask "Would you still have supported Bush?" That's kind of a key question.

I still believe that Iraq/Saddam funded terroist groups. A guy that has millions of dollars laying around doesn't have to leave any kind of paper trail. So, it's not something that can be proven or disproven. I think alot of Republicans (and some Dems) still believe this.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
ToxicAdam said:
The Harris poll then goes to show that 40% of the average Americans believed that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11. So, obviously this isn't a "party" issue (ignorance about 9/11 and the Iraq War) But rather, this is a "people" issue.
I direct you to Table 1 of the Harris poll. That 41% breaks down to 52% for Bush voters, 23% for Kerry voters. The WMD question is a 58/16 split.

Here's a third poll from that month, this time USA Today/CNN/Gallup.
Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington.

In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had personally planned them.

The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%.

Ignorance delivered the election for Bush. You are unsurprised by this. Yet you are disturbed by Kerry quoting a bad percentage.

I am trying to empathize with your priorities. I am failing.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
I don't know, you can use the Harris poll for your facts. The Pipa poll seems a bit more thorough to me. With more pointed questions.


A few tidbits from the Harris poll that are more relevant:

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious threat to U.S. security
63%

92%
30

Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda
62%

84%
37%



That is what brought home the election. The majority of America thought that Iraq posed a serious threat. A majority also thought that there was links to Al Qaeda.

Those numbers aren't a wishy-washy 50 percent for the Republicans .. they are 9/10. Overwhelming. That is where you should be looking. Not WMD's, chemical weapons, and the like. That was a vague, uncertain area. People saw Iraq as a breeding ground of the people who struck during 9/11 and wanted vengance. (Heck, as I stated before, half the Republicans wanted to attack Iraq REGARDLESS of what they might be up to).

At no point in the election, did Kerry come out strong against countries that are potential breeding grounds for terrorism. It was all vague rhetoric. The American people wanted a strong leader. Bush was thier choice.


By the way ... ignorance delivers alot of elections in this country of ours. When has politics been about informing the public? I must have missed that election.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Since I am going to bed, I will sum up.


1) Kerry was wrong about his numbers. I was right that he pulled it out of his ass.

2) Republicans (and many Americans really) tune out contrary information, once they have made up thier minds about an issue.

3) Bush's people used the misguided American public to a narrow election win.

4) All politicians are liars. This is the kind of shit we get with a two party system. Enjoy.


Good night, Cleveland.
 

Macam

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
4) All politicians are liars. This is the kind of shit we get with a two party system. Enjoy.

I think that has less to do with the number of parties involved and more to do with an apathetic, disinterested public. If the public on the whole were more interested and involved in politics, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with half the stuff they currently do.
 
All this information proves is that a lot of Americans are idiots and don't pay attention to the news, current events, or world politics. Perhaps these poll numbers are accurate, but a saw a poll a few months back that showed that there were a lot people who voted for Kerry that believed a number of things that were inaccurate as well. For instance, it was widely held that the Bush Administration allowed Saudi's to leave the US following 9/11 without questioning them, including Bin Laden Family members. Furthermore, it was also believed that they were allowed to fly, while all other flights were grounded. Independent studies showed this to not be true as well, but Michael Moore's film tried to push this info on us, and many people still believe it.

Moral of the story, there are enough idiots that vote for either side, to go around. The average American just isn't all that bright, and just take what ever the media spoon feeds them.
 

AirBrian

Member
Mandark said:
The winning candidate relied on public ignorance about his most important piece of policy, and would not have won if those votes didn't count.
This sums up the American political system nicely. :p
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Kung Fu Jedi said:
but a saw a poll a few months back that showed that there were a lot people who voted for Kerry that believed a number of things that were inaccurate as well. For instance, it was widely held that the Bush Administration allowed Saudi's to leave the US following 9/11 without questioning them, including Bin Laden Family members. Furthermore, it was also believed that they were allowed to fly, while all other flights were grounded. Independent studies showed this to not be true as well, but Michael Moore's film tried to push this info on us, and many people still believe it.

all things being equal, not knowing whether or not the Bin Ladens left the country without being questioned or whether they were allowed to fly or not is of vastly less importance than knowing the facts of whether a country that you are at war with is guilty of the things it has been accused of. I really don't see how the two are even remotely comparable.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Whats done is done.


cryptlord.gif
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Long article:

Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer


Washington Post Wednesday, June 8, 2005

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.

Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis died in May alone amid a rash of bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorists. By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.

The dissipating support for the Iraq war is of potential military concern, because, as Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis wrote in a note to his troops as he led them back into Iraq in February 2004, "our friendly strategic center of gravity is the will of the American people."

Some authorities on war and public opinion said the figures indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has reached a dangerous level. "It appears that Americans are coming to the realization that the war in Iraq is not being won and may well prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor at Boston University. "That conclusion bleeds over into a conviction that it may not have been necessary in the first place."

That is the view of poll respondent Margaret Boudreaux, 63, a casino worker living in Oakdale, La. "I don't think it's going well -- there's too much killing," she said, worrying that the Iraq invasion could move more enemies to violence. "I think that some of the people, if they could, would get revenge for what we've done."

"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden. I don't think he [Bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . . He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse. "People are getting through airport security with things that are unbelievable. . . . I don't think he learned from 9/11."

While Bush has shelved his routine speeches about terrorism, and Congress has turned to domestic issues, fear of terrorism has receded from the public consciousness. Only 12 percent called it the nation's top priority, behind the economy, Iraq, health care and Social Security.

The drop in Bush's approval ratings on fighting terrorism came disproportionately from political independents. In March, 63 percent of independents approved of Bush's job combating terrorism. By April this had fallen to 54 percent. And in this weekend's survey, 40 percent gave him good marks.

The poll suggests that views on the Iraq war's impact also remain highly partisan. Three in four Republicans said the Iraq invasion has boosted domestic security, while three in four Democrats said it has not. Political independents lean negative on the issue: About six in 10 said the war has not made Americans safer.

Overall, Bush's 48 percent job approval rating was essentially unchanged from the 47 percent rating he received in a late-April poll. And there was growth in the proportion of people who said the economy was doing well: 44 percent, up from 37 percent in April.

But the public took a generally gloomy view of the White House and Congress. A plurality said Bush is doing worse in his second term than in his first, and 58 percent said he is not concentrating on the things that matter most to them -- the worst showing Bush has had in this measure in Post-ABC polls.

Congress fared no better. The proportion of the public disapproving of the legislative body was at its highest since late 1998, during President Bill Clinton's impeachment. More people said they would look at a candidate other than their sitting representative than at any point in nearly eight years. For the first time since April 2001, Democrats (46 percent) were trusted more than Republicans (41 percent) to cope with the nation's problems. But at the same time, favorability ratings for the Democratic Party, at 51 percent, tied their all-time low.

A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone June 2 to 5 for this Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll also found disapproval or division when it came to Bush's performance on several other recent, high-profile issues. One-third of those surveyed approved of the way Bush is handling federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, while 55 percent disapproved. The public was divided on the president's handling of judicial nominations, with 46 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. And half said they were opposed to drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a proposal backed by Bush and being debated in Congress.

But the most striking trend identified by the survey was the spreading impatience over Iraq and national security matters. While six in 10 were confident that the United States was not violating the rights of detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Americans were more skeptical that the government is protecting the rights of U.S. citizens at home. Only half said Americans' rights were being adequately protected, down from 69 percent in September 2003.

James Burk, a sociologist at Texas A&M University, said disillusionment about Iraq may have grown to the point that policymakers will have difficulty reversing it. "People all across the country know people in Iraq [so] there's a direct connection to the war," he said. Burk sees a "disjuncture" between upbeat administration rhetoric and realities the public perceives. "These data suggest we will soon reach the point, if we haven't yet reached the point, where that kind of language will seem too out of touch."

I'll see if I can link the charts

GR2005060701109.gif
 
Nerevar said:
all things being equal, not knowing whether or not the Bin Ladens left the country without being questioned or whether they were allowed to fly or not is of vastly less importance than knowing the facts of whether a country that you are at war with is guilty of the things it has been accused of. I really don't see how the two are even remotely comparable.

The fact that both sides are uninformed about the truth is the point, and there were a lot of people voting for Kerry who were spouting off as much non-sense as those who were voting for Bush. I wasn't saying that the information that both sides were getting wrong equated to each other, just that both sides were uninformed and voting on things that weren't really true. There are a ton of fallacies in Farenheit 9/11 that a number of Kerry voters clung to as the "truth" as well when voting against Bush.
 

AssMan

Banned
1) Kerry was wrong about his numbers. I was right that he pulled it out of his ass.


What else is new? Not to mention that he even said himself that Saddam had WMDs.


Anyway, I read that President Bush is the only president in history to spend more money on defense than the whole world's defense COMBINED. No wonder why Bush's approval ratings on domestic issues are at an all time low. :lol
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
For instance, it was widely held that the Bush Administration allowed Saudi's to leave the US following 9/11 without questioning them, including Bin Laden Family members. Furthermore, it was also believed that they were allowed to fly, while all other flights were grounded. Independent studies showed this to not be true as well, but Michael Moore's film tried to push this info on us, and many people still believe it.
More recent information seems to suggest that Saudis were indeed allowed to leave the US without interviews. Despite being more new, the article seems to no longer accessable, so here's a snippet:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/28/18301/1039


Moral of the story, there are enough idiots that vote for either side, to go around. The average American just isn't all that bright, and just take what ever the media spoon feeds them.
Sure, there may be "idiots" on both sides. But who has more? Chances are, it's not an equal distribution.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
The fact that both sides are uninformed about the truth is the point, and there were a lot of people voting for Kerry who were spouting off as much non-sense as those who were voting for Bush.

False as proven by numerous polls. I'll try to find them, but I'm sure a few posters here can remember the studies conducted that showed Kerry voters were much more acquainted with the facts on any number of issues than those supporters of Bush.
 
To almost completely derail the topic...did anyone here ever see or read the true stroy behind The Doomsday Gun? Basically a Canadian weapons scientist gets commisioned by Saddam Hussein to build him a big long range piece of artillery. I think the british or americans or someone find that the materials being shipped to iraq are not oil pipelines but parts of a long weapons barrel. In the end the engineer goes to answer his door at home and is killed. True story but I have never seen the movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109650/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom