The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters

I was just about to post this.

I'm still puzzled as to how so many people can believe that Iraq had WMDs, how many think they had ties to al Queada (or direct involvement in 9/11), and I was especially baffled by their false perceptions about what the rest of the world thinks.

I want these guys to do a survey on Saudi Arabia, personally -- just to see how far the disinformation can go.

Oh, and as far as the reports go:

Having read all 3 reports in question, here's the conclusions I saw:

- The 9/11 commission found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Queada, saying that the closest thing to an alliance here was that there had been some talk in the past of working together on weapons programs, though that information predates the first Gulf War. Iraq provided no financial or other assistance to al Quada. A few years back, OBL labelled Saddam Huessein an infidel for his supposed lack of religious conviction, western style of dress, etc.

- Both weapons reports concluded that Saddam had no weapons prior to the war, and that everything he had before the Gulf War had been destroyed or siezed by the U.N. (500 tons of yellow cake and a few biological agents were in storage in U.N. facilities in Iraq -- facilities that were abandoned prior to the most recent war and now have unaccounted for inventories...). Both concluded that Saddam had not indicated a complete abandonement of his weapons programs, and would likely resume them once sanctions were lifted (of course, that's just speculation, and has a high likelyhood of being politically influenced).

Yeah, I've been skimming the reports now, and that's sorta the impression I'm getting too. Some of it is a lot of reading though. I could try to summarize it for other people, or point them to other summaries that others more intelligent than me have made, but they likely wouldn't trust such summaries. Or I could point them to the reports themselves, but they'll probably just look at them, say, "They're big", and be satisfied with the already summarized propaganda that they currently believe. It's depressing. [depressed]

Number 5 interests me greatly. It seems to point out that Bush would not hurt himself by supporting multilateral approaches. (In fact, he would almost certainly have a greater lead over Kerry if he did so.) And yet, he does so anyway. This is interesting behaviour for a politician. Does anyone have an idea about this?

Quote:

Original post by Tron3k Number 5 interests me greatly. It seems to point out that Bush would not hurt himself by supporting multilateral approaches. (In fact, he would almost certainly have a greater lead over Kerry if he did so.) And yet, he does so anyway. This is interesting behaviour for a politician. Does anyone have an idea about this?

It seems to me that Bush supporters who prefer multilateral approaches actually believe that he does support multilateral approaches. And Bush supporters who prefer US dominance and independence and such think that Bush indeed won't be a pansy and compromise by working with other nations. So he gets those who do basically agree with his methods, and he gets those who want to support him but would likely disagree with his methods in this area. Playing both sides, just like most politicians try to do to a certain extent. Keep as many people happy simultaneously as is possible. (Yes, I think Kerry does it too. Most politicians do. But it at least matches Kerry's world view a bit more appropriately, since his world view does tend to lean towards tolerance more so than Bush's.)

Quote:

Original post by Tron3k Number 5 interests me greatly. It seems to point out that Bush would not hurt himself by supporting multilateral approaches. (In fact, he would almost certainly have a greater lead over Kerry if he did so.) And yet, he does so anyway. This is interesting behaviour for a politician. Does anyone have an idea about this?

He actually does support a multilateral approach with N Korea, and he's being dogged for it.

So what exactly is the magic number that equals "multilateral"?

Its obviously greater than 40 countries.


The Volker report is going to demonstrate that the leaders of the anti-Iraqi invasion movement were simply protecting their ass from daylight regarding their corruption of the UN oil for food money.

When this all washes out, you will see that the containment strategy was crumbling, that France and many other countries were willfully breaking "international law" for back alley kickbacks.
Thus their opposition to the war.

You will also find that your so called "enilightened" view of the conflict was bought and paid for by unelected politicians from Brussels.

Now whether you'll ever cop to it is an entirely different question.

Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom Quote: Original post by Tron3k Number 5 interests me greatly. It seems to point out that Bush would not hurt himself by supporting multilateral approaches. (In fact, he would almost certainly have a greater lead over Kerry if he did so.) And yet, he does so anyway. This is interesting behaviour for a politician. Does anyone have an idea about this? He actually does support a multilateral approach with N Korea, and he's being dogged for it.

Does Bush even have an approach for N. Korea ? It seems to me he's basicly ignoring them, while Kim Yong IL is bragging about his nukes.

Quote:

So what exactly is the magic number that equals "multilateral"? Its obviously greater than 40 countries. The Volker report is going to demonstrate that the leaders of the anti-Iraqi invasion movement were simply protecting their ass from daylight regarding their corruption of the UN oil for food money. When this all washes out, you will see that the containment strategy was crumbling, that France and many other countries were willfully breaking "international law" for back alley kickbacks. Thus their opposition to the war. You will also find that your so called "enilightened" view of the conflict was bought and paid for by unelected politicians from Brussels. Now whether you'll ever cop to it is an entirely different question.

So the reason for the invasion is now a crumbling containement strategy because of some corruption ? Well, why didn't you say so from the beginning ? We could have avoided al those discussions about WMD's, ties to al qaida, and al the other fake reasons to go to war.

What unelected politicians from Brussels are you talking about ?

Note that Chirac and Shroder reasons to oppose the invasion, probably weren't based on humanitarian reasons, but that does not change the fact that the reasons to go to war, were untrue (and probably lies)

Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom Quote: Original post by Tron3k Number 5 interests me greatly. It seems to point out that Bush would not hurt himself by supporting multilateral approaches. (In fact, he would almost certainly have a greater lead over Kerry if he did so.) And yet, he does so anyway. This is interesting behaviour for a politician. Does anyone have an idea about this? He actually does support a multilateral approach with N Korea, and he's being dogged for it.

I've heard that Bush involved China simply because he doesn't actually want to do anything about the N Korea problem. Having one on one talks means there is major pressure for something to actually get done. So I have thought about this issue.

Quote:

So what exactly is the magic number that equals "multilateral"? Its obviously greater than 40 countries. The Volker report is going to demonstrate that the leaders of the anti-Iraqi invasion movement were simply protecting their ass from daylight regarding their corruption of the UN oil for food money. When this all washes out, you will see that the containment strategy was crumbling, that France and many other countries were willfully breaking "international law" for back alley kickbacks. Thus their opposition to the war. You will also find that your so called "enilightened" view of the conflict was bought and paid for by unelected politicians from Brussels. Now whether you'll ever cop to it is an entirely different question.

Regarding this, I don't think that it matters to me why France and other countries didn't support the war. This doesn't affect whether it was a good decision to go to war or not. The only part I'm interested in is your statement that "the containment strategy was crumbling." I believe Etnu summarized this quite well:

Quote:

Oh, and as far as the reports go: Having read all 3 reports in question, here's the conclusions I saw: - The 9/11 commission found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Queada, saying that the closest thing to an alliance here was that there had been some talk in the past of working together on weapons programs, though that information predates the first Gulf War. Iraq provided no financial or other assistance to al Quada. A few years back, OBL labelled Saddam Huessein an infidel for his supposed lack of religious conviction, western style of dress, etc. - Both weapons reports concluded that Saddam had no weapons prior to the war, and that everything he had before the Gulf War had been destroyed or siezed by the U.N. (500 tons of yellow cake and a few biological agents were in storage in U.N. facilities in Iraq -- facilities that were abandoned prior to the most recent war and now have unaccounted for inventories...). Both concluded that Saddam had not indicated a complete abandonement of his weapons programs, and would likely resume them once sanctions were lifted (of course, that's just speculation, and has a high likelyhood of being politically influenced).

From that, you can draw your own conclusions.

Bush doesn't want to "do anything" about N. Korea because they have Nukes in close proximity to one of our largest trading partners and closest allies. We'd never invade a country that actually poses a threat.

Quote:

Original post by Etnu Bush doesn't want to "do anything" about N. Korea because they have Nukes in close proximity to one of our largest trading partners and closest allies. We'd never invade a country that actually poses a threat.

I don't mean to do something militarily, I mean by some other route, such as diplomatic pressure and sanctions.

Linky to info regarding Hussein and Terror


if you mean specifically that Saddam's connection to UBL were tenuous, then ill stand down(though there is an argument to be made), if you mean that Saddam's involvement in the war on terror was tenuous, then you are clearly misinformed, or uninformed.


On the North Korea issue. We have involved not only China, but Japan and a few other major players in the region. We are trying to get other countries to look after their own best interest.(Specifically China because of their power and influence regarding NK)


The short version reasoning is that while NK may be willing to cheat the resolutions arrived at with the US, they will be less inclined to do so when China and their neighbors are involved.(i.e., common sense)

Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom Linky to info regarding Hussein and Terror if you mean specifically that Saddam's connection to UBL were tenuous, then ill stand down(though there is an argument to be made), if you mean that Saddam's involvement in the war on terror was tenuous, then you are clearly misinformed, or uninformed.

You know UBL didn't like Saddam Hussein? Anyway, nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, everybody knows that and always knew it. So what's your point? There are better ways to stop that than to invade his whole country.

Quote:

On the North Korea issue. We have involved not only China, but Japan and a few other major players in the region. We are trying to get other countries to look after their own best interest.(Specifically China because of their power and influence regarding NK) The short version reasoning is that while NK may be willing to cheat the resolutions arrived at with the US, they will be less inclined to do so when China and their neighbors are involved.(i.e., common sense)

Hey, you can see it that way or you can see it my way. We'll see what actually works in the long run.

Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom if you mean specifically that Saddam's connection to UBL were tenuous, then ill stand down(though there is an argument to be made), if you mean that Saddam's involvement in the war on terror was tenuous, then you are clearly misinformed, or uninformed.

I think that what confuses this issue is that for the typical American, terrorst == Al Qaeda/bin Laden. They're aware that other terrorists exist, but they really only care about the ones that attacked us on 9/11. So when someone says that Saddam did or didn't have ties to terrorists, what they hear is Saddam did or didn't have ties to Al Qaeda. Politicians haven't been particularly careful about how they talk about this issue, which I think is at least in part responsible for Bush supporters thinking that Saddam was involved in 9/11 (though I'd place most of the blame on statements made by Cheney and to a lesser extent Bush).

Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom Linky to info regarding Hussein and Terror if you mean specifically that Saddam's connection to UBL were tenuous, then ill stand down(though there is an argument to be made), if you mean that Saddam's involvement in the war on terror was tenuous, then you are clearly misinformed, or uninformed. On the North Korea issue. We have involved not only China, but Japan and a few other major players in the region. We are trying to get other countries to look after their own best interest.(Specifically China because of their power and influence regarding NK) The short version reasoning is that while NK may be willing to cheat the resolutions arrived at with the US, they will be less inclined to do so when China and their neighbors are involved.(i.e., common sense)

The question never was whether he had links to terrorists; of course he did, every middle eastern leader does, most notably our great allies of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The main difference with Saddam is that he was only concerned with personal power, not hell-bent on just killing non-muslims like al Quada is. The fact remains that we went to war on 2 big premises: a.) Saddam Hussein has WMDs, and we can't take that risk after 9/11, b.) Saddam has ties to al Quada.

Both are false, and, as the study indicates, most people would not have supported the war if they knew they were false from the get go.

"As the nation prepares to watch the presidential candidates debate foreign policy issues, a new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll finds that Americans who plan to vote for President Bush have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. Kerry supporters, on the other hand, are largely accurate in their assessments. Swing voters also tend to misperceive Bush’s positions, though to a smaller extent than Bush supporters, and to perceive Kerry’s positions correctly.

PIPA selected these questions from those asked in polls by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and dealt with issues on which the presidential candidates have taken clear and documented positions."

(skip to page 6 of document, there's an easy to read chart)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report09_29_04.pdf

You do realize that what you just linked to is included in this report, right?

Quote:

Original post by Etnu You do realize that what you just linked to is included in this report, right?

oops. I didn't read the whole report word for word, and I didn't click on the original link in this thread, just read the quotes.

btw, how do you add a link under the guise of a different title and your mouse'll automatically guide you to the web page? (please answer) I know, as I'm on this page, I should have some kind of knowledge. But the truth is I found this page due to the interesting conversation, not 'cause I know anything about computers. Go ahead, laugh. I'll take my lumps.

Quote:

Original post by Myopic Rhino Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom if you mean specifically that Saddam's connection to UBL were tenuous, then ill stand down(though there is an argument to be made), if you mean that Saddam's involvement in the war on terror was tenuous, then you are clearly misinformed, or uninformed. I think that what confuses this issue is that for the typical American, terrorst == Al Qaeda/bin Laden. They're aware that other terrorists exist, but they really only care about the ones that attacked us on 9/11. So when someone says that Saddam did or didn't have ties to terrorists, what they hear is Saddam did or didn't have ties to Al Qaeda. Politicians haven't been particularly careful about how they talk about this issue, which I think is at least in part responsible for Bush supporters thinking that Saddam was involved in 9/11 (though I'd place most of the blame on statements made by Cheney and to a lesser extent Bush).

Fair enough, but in all fairness the concept is not difficult to grasp(even for the average American [smile]). We dubbed it the war on terror, not the war on Al-Qaeda/UBL.

Even "The War on Terror" is a misnomer, in that the action is really a war against Islamic-Facism. Not only the actual foot soldiers, but their generals, collaberators, and places of refuge.

Now if you want to argue that the scope of this response is over zealous or over reaching, then that is fine. it is debatable.

But if you believe that the war most be fought in a comprehensive manner, using the edge of the sword and not the blunt pommel, then all that has followed will make sense to you.(note here, i am not putting forth that we have performed flawlessly, there is always room for improvement)

The counter to this argument is that we are creating more potential "terrorists" than we are attriting. According to every valid metric for human behaviour, increasing the risk while reducing the pay-off is a sure fire way to reduce a specific actions instances.

If marijuana carried a mandatory death sentence for mere possession, and you only got half as "high" as you used to, you may very well never touch the stuff again(just an example, you know im for decriminalization)


As a country, we have propped up M.E. dictators for convenience, for security, for stability, and for lucrative oil contracts. of these benefits sought we received only the latter.

In this action we seek to undo some of the mistakes of our past, other nations are happy with the status quo, invested heavily in the status quo, without the encumbrance of being the ultimate target of the facists.

It seems to me that every idealistic liberal minded person in the world would embrace the replacement of tyranny for self determination, but my old liberal allies have seldom failed to dissapoint me in this respect.(less my boy Hitchens of course. [smile]

Quote:

Original post by Tron3k Quote: Original post by Etnu Bush doesn't want to "do anything" about N. Korea because they have Nukes in close proximity to one of our largest trading partners and closest allies. We'd never invade a country that actually poses a threat. I don't mean to do something militarily, I mean by some other route, such as diplomatic pressure and sanctions.

There is no military solution here. Progress is being made peacefully; for example, I recently read that South Korea is creating a manufacturing center across the DMZ in Kaeson, North Korea which will primarily employ North Koreans in South Korean factories. Despite the fact that the workers will earn a pathetic fraction of what their South Korean (and even Chinese) counterparts do, this is still a positive step forward in relations between the 2 countries.

So to those of you here who have been considering (and even advocating) a "tough" approach to NK: In your face, bitches!