There appears to be some minor buzz over a new report, titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. After reading the report, Salon.com (which used to be merely liberal but is now so far left that it makes The Nation look like National Review) let's loose with how they really feel about Republicans:
Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes evidence that they're right!
[snip]
Analyzing data from a series of nationwide polls, the report finds that a majority of Bush supporters believe things about the world that are objectively untrue, while the majority of Kerry supporters dwell in the reality-based community.
While I’m hearted to see the secular left embracing “objective truth”, that isn't exactly what the report shows. If the report can be said to be indicative of anything it's that the “different realities” that separate the two groups are differences in language: Kerry supporters prefer adjectives while Bush voters favor nouns. How else can we explain that the differences in realities all hinge on the placement of modifiers?
One easy way to spot a biased survey is to examine its use of qualifying words. The ones used in the PIPA report are so embarrassingly obvious that it could be used as a textbook case of how to ask questions to get the results you want. Take, for instance, the opening paragraph of their summary:
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
Now let’s look at the same passage without the adjectives:
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a WMD program [Not true. The report said that there was a WMD program.], 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) [True, over 50 were found] or a program for developing them (25%) [also true]. Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD [true] and 57% also assume…that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a WMD program [true]. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda [true], and 63% believe that evidence of this support has been found [true]. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume…that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission [True and True]. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
Notice how the “reality” changes when the passage is stripped of its subjective modifiers? It becomes even more obvious when we examine the questions that were asked:
Is it your perception that that experts mostly agree that just before the war Iraq:Had WMD – Bush supporters 56%; Kerry supporters 18%
This question is simply too confusing to be useful. Is it asking whether before the war the experts believed Iraq had WMDs or is it asking whether that is what the experts are saying now. It becomes especially confusing when combined with the next question.
As you may know, Charles Duelfer, the chief weapons inspector selected by the Bush administration to investigate whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, has just presented his final report to Congress. Is it your impression he concluded that, just before the war, Iraq had:
WMD – Bush 19%; Kerry 7%
Major program – Bush 38%; Kerry 16%
Notice the difference between this question and the previous one? Fewer than 20% of the respondents think that the Duelfer report claims that Iraq did not have WMDs before the war (these numbers are, of course, surprisingly low considering that the Duelfer report said that WMDs were found just a few months ago). Why is there a 37% difference between the two answers since they are basically asking the same thing? And why does the summary passage not use this number since they say “Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer…”?
The second part of the question, asking about the “major” program, is a matter of interpretation. If the question were simply whether Saddam had a WMD program the answer would obviously have to be answered in the affirmative. But by adding the qualifier “major” it becomes purely subjective. Where is the line drawn between a "minor" WMD program and a "major" one? Is being able to produce large amounts of mustard gas within three months a “major” program? I was under the impression that Saddam was not suppossed to have a WMD program at all.
Is it your impression that Iraq wasDirectly involved in 9/11 – Bush 20%; Kerry 8%
Gave al-Qaeda substantial support – Bush 55%; Kerry 22%
We shouldn’t be surprised that the summary doesn’t mention that 80% of Bush supporters don’t think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. Instead the summary chooses to focus on the percentage that believes that Iraq gave “substantial” support to al-Qaeda. In the report of findings PIPA claims that “Despite the report of the 9/11 Commission saying that there is no evidence Iraq was providing significant support to al Qaeda…”[emphasis added]. Notice how once again they have to add a modifier. The reason becomes obvious when we look at the actual Commission’s report:
In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help [Islamist extremists in the Kurdistan area of Iraq] re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy. (Pg. 79)In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative [to offer cooperation to Bin Laden]. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegations traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides hatred of the United States. But to date we have no evidence that these or the earlier contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (pg. 89)
Apparantly Kerry supporters don’t believe that helping al Qaeda operatives attack the Kurds or offering a safe haven for Bin Laden is “significant.”
Is it your impression that the Bush administration is currently saying that just before the war, Iraq
Had WMD – Bush 63%; Kerry 73%
Had a major WMD program – Bush 19%; Kerry 24%
Is it your impression that, just before the war, that the Bush administration had said that Iraq:Directly involved in 9/11 – Bush 19%; Kerry 25%
Gave substantial support -- Bush 56%; Kerry 49%
Again we find two questions that are so confusing that the results become uninformative.
Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you thinkMajority favors – Bush 26%; Kerry 5%
Are evenly divided – Bush 42%; Kerry 20%
Majority opposes -- Bush 31%; Kerry 74%
The summary claims that “Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries,…”
The problem with this passage is that the conclusion of the PPIA doesn’t match the data. For example, they claim that a Gallup International poll says that a majority of people in the world opposed the US having gone to war in Iraq. But the actual poll only shows that “approximately half” opposed the war “under any circumstances.” That is neither a majority nor a fair extrapolation of the data. Besides, there are 191 countries in the UN. How is a poll of 38 countries representative of the “world”?
Thinking about how people around the world feel about the US presidential election, do you think:
Majority prefers Bush – 57% Bush supporters; 9% Kerry supporters
Majority prefers Kerry – 9% Bush supporters; 69% Kerry supporters
This is the hands down the stupidest question in the survey. Who cares which candidate the world prefers? Why should we pay attention to other countries when they elect people like Yasser Arafat and Jacques Chirac?
The one area that the survey appears to have accurately reported is the Bush supporters misperception that the President supports the atrocious global treaties that the rest of the world thinks we should be signing on to. The Kerry supporters, on the other hand, were able to correctly identify their candidates position on almost every issue. To be fair, though, they had an advantage over the Bush supporters. All they had to do in order to guess where Kerry stands is to ask “What would France do?”
1
Those of us who read extremist sites don't need the PIPA data to understand that Bush supporters are looking increasingly insane as they scramble to justify the War in Iraq. We see people on those sites everyday who confirm that data.
What we've found is that Iraq had no active WMD program and that Saddam had backed off even trying to maintain one due to inspections and his desire to keep the Oil for Food Program going. It was one of the few lucrative ventures left for him. We also have found no stockpiles of WMD's and no factories for making them. We've also found no significant links to Al Qaeda and not a shred of participation in 9-11. Yet extremist continue to maintain that all those do/did exist, and that furthermore the exact reports that deny that assessment in fact support their delusion.
We don't need the PIPA data to confirm this because we see it, live, in real time. This is cognitive dissonance, a sort of mass delusional psychosis. I believe anyone is susceptible to such disconnects although what this one in particular stems from I do not know. The fact that it's the highly correlated to religious fundamentalists who are adept at denying other types of reality suggests that those who are the most practiced at deceiving themselves are the most vulnerable in this instance at least.
2
DS,
This is cognitive dissonance, a sort of mass delusional psychosis. I believe anyone is susceptible to such disconnects although what this one in particular stems from I do not know.
It's not psychosis, and there's no disconnect. As Joe pointed out, its just a matter of getting rid of those pesky "subjective" adjectives. You know, those darn buggers that seperate substantial from insubstantial, signficant from insignificant, major from minor, and large from small.
Judgments of measure don't matter when you're talking about enforcing the laws of that corrupt and evil UN beaurocracy. When it comes to evil dictators, you can't let them fog your mind with puny details of cost and benefit. The law is the law, and all it took was one sarin capsule to prove that Saddam was in material breach of the UN's resolution. Somebody needed to stand up for the (not impotent and corrupt) regulations of that (impotent and corrupt) organzation!
posted on 10.22.2004 12:36 AM3
Hehe Andrew...that Sarin Capsule is DEADLY in thw rong hands :) I'm used to dealing with victims of creationist claptrap where the issue isn't nearly so serious and immediate. It's scary to see the same piss poor nythos applied to something which might well kill a bunch of us.
What worries me is the thought of the folks who made those WMD's 'back in the day the good old USA and Saddam were palsies' are no loner limited by Saddam's concerns and are now free to sell to the highest bidder. For awhile I thought maybe a WMD on the US as a result of that stupidity would knock some people like Joe out of their delusion. But I'm not so sure. I can almost see his post claiming in the aftermath of such an event "See? See? We were right to go in!".
4
DS, you are funny. We have found no active WMD program, no stockpiles of WMD's, no significant links to Al Qaeda... I think you are proving joe's point.
When you add qualifiers to the terms, like stockpiles, you get into fuzzy areas. We have found WMD shells in Iraq. Polish troops uncovered a few dozen shells of mustard gas and sarin gas. But what constitutes a stockpile? Certainly if you added all the WMDs we have found and put them together, we'd have a stockpile; but when you only find a few at a time, does that constitute a stockpile? Even if we found enough to constitute a stockpile, then you are still right in saying we didn't find stockpileS (plural).
You say no "Significant" link to al qaeda. Well what is significant to one person might not be significant to another, so take that word out and ask have we found ANY links to al qaeda? The answer is yes. Al Zaquari(sp) was and is al qaeda. he was injured fighting with the taliban in afghanistan and he fled to iraq. there he set up shop to try to attain WMD in iraq.
DS, I am hoping your comment was intentionally ironic; otherwise, you probably need to rethink just who is suffering from the disconnect.
posted on 10.22.2004 1:00 AM6
Ken you are proving the point PIPA was highlighting. You're in deep, deep, denial unable to aknowledge that Bush made a huge mistake. And I'm sorry to say, your delusions are shared by many of your peers.
posted on 10.22.2004 6:47 AM7
We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” [Rice 9/10/02 Source: Telegraph]
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” [Bush 9/26/02 Source: White House Web site]
“[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” [Rumsfeld 9/19/02 Source: DOD Web site]
“His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox - and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.” [Rumsfeld 1/20/03 Source: DOD Web site]
Emphasis added for Ken's benefit.
posted on 10.22.2004 7:37 AM8
DS,
It's nice to see a sane person in touch with reality bothering to post the facts about how totally out-of-touch with reality the Bush administration was in claiming Iraq presented a real near-term (much less immanent) threat to anyone. I fear the problem is reason and facts do not pursuade when emotional commitment runs so strong.
Perhaps someday people that share Joe and Ken's unwavering support for Bush's preference for reducing the tax burden on the wealthy at the expense of fiscal responsibility and massive deficit spending which will undermine the economy for decades to come, denying/ignoring the much closer ties between the Saudi family and terrorism than Saddam ever had, etc., will someday realize they have been duped by yet another "Jim Baker," who deceived myriads of well-meaning fundamentalist christians who couldn't believe anyone who "talks the talk" could be dishonest and self-serving.
Sad. Very sad.
DT
posted on 10.22.2004 8:56 AM9
Bush didn't make a mistake in invading Iraq and removing a dictator who was openly hostile to America's interests around the world. He would be making a mistake if the hysterics of the Left, who has always coddled dictatorial regimes, hinders him from finishing the job at hand. More regime changes need to be done in Iran, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and North Korea. Whether we do it with bombs or with assassins' bullets are irrelevant.
These regimes have to go. A Kerry presidency will only make them stronger.
posted on 10.22.2004 8:59 AM10
Wow, DT, that's quite a little poetic you've got going.
As refreshing as it is to see the Far Left embrace tax cuts for the middle class up to $199,999 per year, your history on economics and foreign policy leave so much to be desired that I simply can't take you seriously anymore. If the Bush voters are all being duped like Jim Bakker duped his minions, then your candidate needs to expose that fact. On November 3, the Liberals will have some choices to make: turn aside from the class-warfare rhetoric that has failed them for the past twenty years and turned a solid Democratic majority into a whiny minority party, or continue with more of the same.
When Bush wins, with a majority popular vote and a majority in the EC, I expect you'll do what you've always done: move further left, screaming as you go. Fine with me.
posted on 10.22.2004 9:03 AM11
Now conservatives want to rid the language of modifiers so that it more clearly reflects their black-and-white perception. Sheesh!
Adjectives (and adverbs) are vital are vital in any language that seeks to make meaningful distinctions and express nuance. This post reeks of desperation.
"Bush supporters aren't dummies; they really aren't!"
posted on 10.22.2004 9:04 AM12
'These regimes have to go. A Kerry presidency will only make them stronger.'
bush has managed to create a breeding groud for terrorism in iraq. now they don't need thse pesky passports to go on jihad, they can jsut sneek in over the border from iran.
posted on 10.22.2004 9:52 AM13
"bush has managed to create a breeding groud for terrorism in iraq. now they don't need thse pesky passports to go on jihad, they can jsut sneek in over the border from iran."
1. Show documentation. Otherwise it's just another pathetic rant. The "breeding groud" (SIC) in Iraq was there when Hussein operated terror camps, and paid suicide bombers. You ignore those things, because for a long time it was only Jews getting killed, and you don't care about them.
2. If you're right, Good. Let all the terrorists come to Iraq. Our armored divisions await to send them and their cursed brethren to meet their 72 virgins. Rather deal with them over there than here.
3. Glad you agree that Iran is a terrorist regime also, and needs to go. I'm sure we'll see you post your support when we eventually overthrow the mullahs in Iran, and kill the terrorists there.
4. Spellcheck. Look into it.
14
I remember 1979, Super Bowl XIII, like it was yesterday. Growing up in Texas I was a hard-core Dallas Cowboy fan from my first memory. Dallas played well in that super bowl against the hated Pittsburg Steelers (At least in my home they were hated). In that game a tight-end named Jackie Smith dropped a certain touchdown pass which Staubach lobbed softly right into his hands. Dallas had the momentum at the time, I think they would have won had Smith not dropped that ball and that opinion is supported by the final score. The Cowboys ended up losing 35 to 31, a touchdown would have made a difference. That loss and that dropped touchdown pass really hurt me. I couldn't accept it at first. I went around for weeks claiming that Dallas really won despite what the score said. I damn near got into a fist fight with one of my best friends who gently corrected me that Dallas had in fact lost. I was only 16 at the time and this was just a foot ball game, but I was convinced somehow for a short while that Dallas had somehow really won that game. I can think of other examples of cognitive dissonance on my part but that's a particularly painful one that still sends echoes of remorse down the years into the psyche of the adult I've become. I now know that Dallas did not win, in fact I knew that in some part of mind even then. But it took some time to admit it to myself and it still hurts to this day.
The issue Joe brought up is the PIPA data specifically in the context of cognitive dissonance found among some groups of Bush supporters as in evidence on this Blog. The Bush admin has attempted to mislead the electorate about what the findings of various bipartisan reports on Saddam chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs as well as his 'connections' to Al Qaeda.
On a side note, I feel the best response to the findings of those reports would have been to admit errors were made, but that it was an honest error. Then the Bush WH could have moved on to use that information wisely, reevaluate those personnel who gave the poor advice, and learn from it.
Reasonable people can certainly disagree no Bush's fitness for the job. I have some very good friends who own a geology company that feel Bush deserves another term. They're quite analytical, they do not discard contradicting data for their entire livelihood is the analysis of geological data and on providing advice to companies based ion that data. They support Bush but they make no bones about Iraq. They view it as a mistake, albeit an honest one committed by an honest administration (or as honest as a politician can be anyway) done in the heat of the moment and with your best interests at heart. That's a defensible argument and one the WH should have pursued. Yes, Bush would have taken a hit on credibility, but that argument would have been at least both morally and rationally defensible and by now most of it would have blown over. Bush has flop-flopped back and forth between admitting it was an honest error and stating it was not an error at all. The result is he has lost a much more credibility than had he admitted error and dealt with it among both political flavors. We see a new article coming out almost daily written by a Republican stating they cannot support Bush, and I think the crux of their discontent lies on the lack of credibility Bush has sown in Iraq. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not it was an honest and forgiveable screw-up. But reasonable people cannot disagree on the fact that it has been a screw-up, that our pretense for going to War has turned out to be invalid, anymore than reasonable people can disagree on who won Super Bowl XIII.
What concerns us here is not the President's puzzling refusal to recognize error or the dynamics which led to the mismanagement of the War in Iraq. This thread is about the inability of many of his supporters to distinguish between wishful thinking and factual data which contradicts the discredit fantasy they desire to be true, even when the latter is laid out in front them. I don't know why this is, but it's troubling. Rejecting facts in the formation of policy is not a good way to run a railroad much less a war. In this case it has dragged us into a mess in Iraq while splitting our nation apart at home and blowing a whole in the budget. Attacking the wrong country or going about warfare ineffectively doesn't help anyone except the enemy. And the enemy doesn't bother himself with buying into wishful thinking on behalf of George Bush, nor can a man who's willing to fly himself into a skyscraper in the hopes of killing as many people as possible be intimidated by bravado regardless if the bravado is legitimate or not.
I would have thought prior to this last year that the resistance among even the most extremist ideologically driven to accept dissonant facts would decrease with the gravity and immediacy of the situation at hand. For example on this forum we have a number of folks who reject evolutionary biology and embrace a mythological explanation instead, and regardless of how many times the weaknesses in the various mythological alternatives to evolution are explained, they stick by those discredit alternatives even in the face of factual contradicting data. But evolution is not a matter of critical self defense and does not immediately threaten the security of the nation. Creationists have the luxury of being wrong about evolution because it doesn't kill anyone or really hurt anyone, at least not visibly and not immediately. I had the luxury of being in a cloud about Super Bowl XIII for the same reasons. But when the situation is grave, there's no utility in bolstering one's ego based on dissonance. E.G. when an individual who prefers wishful thinking over factual data is faced with an immediate threat to their well being, say with an armed enemy charging their position in Fallujuh, that same person will not fall back on philosophical attacks on 'reality' or 'materialism'; they won't try and 'pray the guy to death'. Or at least we wouldn't consider that a rational response. They'll shoot him. They''ll choose the pragmatic known solution over the iffy never substantiated fantasy of wishful thinking almost every time, no matter how badly they'd like to believe the attacker will drop dead from supernatural intervention. Making a critical error in strategy after the greatest attack on America in the last 100 years is more like the latter than the former, and I would have thought before now that even the most hard-boiled extremists would be able to recognize the facts and act accordingly to protect the nation, leaving ideology and wishful thinking on the sidelines. This is after all not a football game nor a debate over pseudoscience and we're not adolescents. But apparently, tragically, I'm wrong. Grown adults are literally hiding their heads in the sand on this most important issue and whining "Is not". It's not only revolting and out of place among religious folks who value honesty and truth, it's dangerous for the nation.
While I'm able to gain some insight into the phenomena from the comments of those who are still under the spell of whatever the heck it is interfering with their cognitive function, I'm moreinterested in the thoughts of those who have experience in psychology as to why some Bush supporters continue to insist on scenarios which have been shown false?
posted on 10.22.2004 10:38 AM15
Kevin read my post above. You're exhibiting cognitive dissonance. You demand absolute metaphysical certainty for the existence of increased recruitment of terrorists as a result of Iraq and the War, yet you happily dismiss evidence that contravenes your posiiotn on WMD's and the threat Iraq posed while adopting a position which has no evidence to support it at all. This is a big part of what I'm trying to unerstand; The inability or unwiliingness to accept dissonant evidence while demanding evidence for the opposing view and accepting a potion which has no evidence. It's irrational son.
posted on 10.22.2004 10:52 AM16
I don't use language like "absolute metaphysical certainty" and don't even know what it means. My post to apocalypse was meant to say that (1) there is no evidence that "terrorists" are "pouring" into Iraq, but that (2) if so, that's OK.
Here's what I think: you're right, and there are plenty of Republicans who love Bush who believe he made a mistake in invading Iraq. And there are also many Democrats who hate Bush but who will vote for him because he's the only one with a plan on the table to wipe out terrorism, and takes it seriously. When we hear things like "Bush lied!!", then see that he was saying the same thing Kerry and Kennedy and Clinton had been saying for years, we can't take you seriously. When we see that sarin and mustard gas shells have been found in Iraq, indeed used against our forces, then hear you say "Bush lied about WMD's!!", same story. When we hear stories about the extraordinary heroism of John Kerry, which, if that's to be believed, 260 war heroes have to be lying, same thing again. When we find mass graves of CHILDREN in Iraq, and the Left doesn't give a damn because there's not a nuclear warhead somewhere among the skulls and bones, we see the Left for what it is, and always has been.
For the record, I hate his domestic spending. I hate the prescription drug bill. I hate his education bill. I hated the steel tariffs. I resent the fact that even a Republican Congress can pass legislation that Bush won't lift a veto pen over. I don't believe Colin Powell was a good selection at SecState. I believe we should have invaded Iraq SOONER, not later. I believe we should have Special Forces in Iran TODAY, not tomorrow. I believe we shouldn't have gone through the motions at the UN at all, because that gave the organization legitimacy when it deserved none. Yet to hear me characterized as a kool aid drinker who just regurgitates what he hears on talk radio (btw, I don't listen to the radio at all--I damaged the antenna driving through a car wash last year and can't get the AM dial at all) just pisses me off. If you pull up my threads on Lucianne.com from three years ago, you will see that I regretted the Bush won the Republican nomination and got to sit in the White House. And, I was nearly alone in saying so.
But given the choice between a seventies Northeastern liberal radical and George Bush, it's not even a close call. If the Democrats had run Joseph Lieberman, he'd be up ten points. You didn't. It is liberal democrats who have assured Bush's re-election. Thanks for nothing.
posted on 10.22.2004 11:29 AM17
And these are the same "enlightened and anointed" who denounced me for "living in a fantasy" world for playing D&D.
Definition of "you're living in a fantasy world":
You have the gall to not live completely in MY fantasy world.
18
Kevin I like you and I don't think you're a koolaid drinker. I don'tr think bush supoprters are collectively stupid. Hell I don't think Bush is stupid.
I think that term 'koolaid drinker' is about as misused as 'fascist'. Both are inteneded as an insult and both are usually of the mark. The US as of now is quite far from fascism. (We wouldn't be having this discussion if we were a fascist state, not for very long anyway). Like I said reaosnable people can differ on their opinion of a Bush 2nd term or on the nature of the decision to invade Iraq. That being said I see no common ground possible between someone who thinks Iraq really did pose a siginificant threat to the US because they really did have WMD's and opertaional links to AQ and the facts. The facts as we know them for the present are that that is not the case yet we see continued insistance among some-not all-Bush supporters that Iraq did indeed pose such a grave threat that we had no choice but to invade quickly.
On the need for allies and global co-operation in warfare, I couldn't disagree with you more. "More" is always better than "less" when confronting an enemy. Unity is always better than division when facing a widespread threat. And providing a well respected refuge in which people from all over the world feel comfortable feeling to in times of great upheavel is hugely beneficial, in fact that's why we got the A-bomb first.
posted on 10.22.2004 11:51 AM19
When confronting an enemy, "sooner" is better than "later", especially when we now know that Hussein had been bribing other members of the UN Security Council to drag out the events leading up to the war.
I'm sure you have an opinion about Israel's declaration of this morning regarding Iran's nuclear program. That Israel will "go it alone, if necessary" to keep Iran from developing such a program. Are they wrong? There is no "immediate" threat, after all, just a bunch of crazy guys who support Hezbollah and wish all Jews dead. Are you going to wait for a muchroom cloud over Tel Aviv before giving the Israelis the go-ahead to strike the Iranian program?
Hopefully they won't go alone. When the Israeli fighter pilot or Special Forces operator looks to his left and right, he will see American comrades covering his flanks, and protecting the advance. If Kerry wins, though, Israel will go it alone, and will be the only ones who were right.
posted on 10.22.2004 12:19 PM20
"I really can't imagine them being dumb enough to attack the US or purposely allowing Iranian nukes/WMD's to fall ino the hands of terrorist who attack the US."
I couldn't imagine Saddam being that dumb either. But what I can't imagine has no bearing on what 62% of Republicans (at least) can imagine.
posted on 10.22.2004 1:29 PM21
So by taking Joe's train of thought to it's logical conclusion. When Bush told us that we had to go to war with Iraq to prevent WMD's falling into the hands of terrorists, he was referring to 50 nerve-gas artillery shells?
Granted, those 50 shells could cause a lot of damage, but was it worth invading a country? If he'd just had one, would it still have been sufficient justification? Wouldn't going to war be overkill? Like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer?
Frankly, getting rid of Saddam was reason enough. You don't need to resort to the flim-faddle rhetoric.
posted on 10.22.2004 1:58 PM22
Patrick,
So by taking Joe's train of thought to it's logical conclusion. When Bush told us that we had to go to war with Iraq to prevent WMD's falling into the hands of terrorists, he was referring to 50 nerve-gas artillery shells?
That’s neither what I claimed nor what the report was about. Bush obviously thought there was a significant number of WMDs. How many? I don’t recall him every saying.
Granted, those 50 shells could cause a lot of damage, but was it worth invading a country? If he'd just had one, would it still have been sufficient justification? Wouldn't going to war be overkill? Like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer?
Frankly, getting rid of Saddam was reason enough. You don't need to resort to the flim-faddle rhetoric.
I agree. We didn’t go to war solely because of the WMD issue. Even if we completely took that out of the equation I think the war would have still been justified. But the way in which some people downplay the significance of the WMDs that Saddam did have is absurd and completely politically motivated.
Would the same people who think that a sing sarin shell is “insignificant” feel the same if it were detonated in their neighborhood? We are not talking about bullets and guns. We are talking about weapons that Iraq was not supposed to possess at all.
23
Bush obviously thought there was a significant number of WMDs. How many? I don’t recall him every saying.
Let me remind you then.
"We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” [Rice 9/10/02 Source: Telegraph]
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” [Bush 9/26/02 Source: White House Web site]
“[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” [Rumsfeld 9/19/02 Source: DOD Web site]
“His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox - and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.” [Rumsfeld 1/20/03 Source: DOD Web site]
Now was Rummy and Condi speaking for the President or were they speaking soley for themselves?
Would the same people who think that a sing sarin shell is “insignificant” feel the same if it were detonated in their neighborhood? We are not talking about bullets and guns. We are talking about weapons that Iraq was not supposed to possess at all.
Only in Joe Carterland is a few obsolete Sarin Shells worth on the other side of the world such an immediate threat it's worth ~1100 dead GI's, 3000 blinded, amputated, or paralyzed, or otherwise seriously wounded US Service men and women, and 150 billion dollars and counting.
posted on 10.22.2004 2:40 PM24
Kevin some elements in the command and control sector might sponsor a major attack and make one of their nukes I suppose. Hard to say. If too many people within Iran knew about it though I suspect they'd find themselves at the bottom of the Persian Gulf wearing weights.
posted on 10.22.2004 2:55 PM25
DS, I can only believe that you aren't paying attention. The idea of waiting until a regime is an "immediate threat" is what brought us to 9/11. The Bush Doctrine is this: we will find terrorists around the world and kill them. We will disrupt their networks. And we will neutralize any threat to America before it can become reality.
If that kind of boldness troubles you, vote for Kerry. You will anyway. And you'll get just what you want: a return to September 10, 2001. When militant Islam killing a few dozen Americans here and there was just a "nuisance", when blowing up American barracks and destroyers didn't affect you personally, so it was OK.
If it works for you, go with that. As for me, and probably for most of America, we still have a lot of work to do, killing terrorists and ripping apart the regimes that support them.
posted on 10.22.2004 2:58 PM26
Kevin W
"The idea of waiting until a regime is an "immediate threat" is what brought us to 9/11."
Not at all. What brought us 9/11 is IGNORING immediate threats. Recall the memo: Bin Laden determined to attack US.
And recall everything else that was reported by al Qaeda before 9/11. I read the papers. Those guys were nuts. I would supported US military action in Afghanistan when we knew they were going to demolish those Buddha statues. That was enough for me to understand that the Taliban were absolutely over-the-edge freaking nuts.
But what happened? Condi was too stupid to pay attention to Richard Clarke and understand the threat of terrorism. Richard Clarke was too chicken to call Condi out as an incompetent fool publicly in 2001. And George Bush went on the longest vacatation in Presidential history after Condi showed him a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US".
posted on 10.22.2004 3:47 PM27
Buddha statues? That's what did it for you? You wanted to invade Afghanistan based on the destruction of Buddha statues, but you call Bush on the carpet for being misled by the "intelligence" community of the entire Western world for Iraqi WMD's?
You believe it's fine to invade a sovereign nation for confiscating statues of dead 400-pound Oriental guys, but a dictator who is busy filling up mass graves of living people gets a pass?
28
I'm sorry Kevin I was being distracted earlier when I replied.
On Iran; like I say I suppose it is possible. I can only guess based on what I perceive to be in their interests. Right now things are going better for Iran than they have in a long time. Oil from Aziz is fetching a record price. Their long time enemy on their border is in ruins. The US has undermined it's own credibility in the region and by proxy the influence of Israel on moderate Islamic countries. From a purely rational view point it doesn't make sense that they would provoke the US into obliterating them when they're prospering. Again this assumes that the people in power or with the access to such devices are operating rationally which you correctly pointed out is an assumption in this case that may not be warranted.
I'd guess a more likely source for a nuke used against the US by Al Qaeda would be Chechnya or the related Muslims strongholds around the Caspian Basin. There's potentially more devices already built avaliable to steal or bribe away, more enriched material already in existence, etc.
More importantly that might inhibit our response. We'd have to be awfully careful about striking Chechnya in retaliation because they're part of Russia, an ally in the WoT, and Russia still has plenty of nukes of their own to use on our interests, or on us.
They'd basically have to either sign off on us using nukes on their soil-highly unlikely although with Putin in power who knows-or we'd have to be willing to potentially take them on at all kinds of levels.
On your concern over waiting unti a regime becomes an immediate threat, I understand the potential disaster if we fail to act. The problem as I see it is that damn near any government is thereotically capable of becoming an immediate threat although I think I understand what you mean; we'd both probably agree some are a little further down that path than others.
As I said on a previous post, defending the war in Iraq on the basis that it was an honest msitake, i.e. along the lines of better safe than sorry, is at least morally and rationally defensible. IMO such an error is grounds for being let go from employment so to speak, but reasonable people can disagree on that imo. That's the way I see it. What do you think?
posted on 10.22.2004 4:10 PM29
Kevin, read my post. I said:
"That was enough for me to understand that the Taliban were absolutely over-the-edge freaking nuts."
Saddam Hussein, though he may fairly be called "evil" and "ruthless," was not nearly as disgustingly malevolent and insane as the Taliban leaders and their followers. For one thing, he wasn't a fundamentalist religious wacko clearly engaged in anti-US operations.
Tell me Kevin: besides 9/11, can you think of ANY other single event in recent history as bizarre as the demolition of those statues? What other conclusion can you possibly draw from their destruction other than "Those guys are freaking insane and we'd better let them know that their fun and games are over"?
It's as if fundamentalist Christians took over the United States and blew up the MOMA because the art inside was "against God." When that day comes, I would WELCOME the invasion of the United States by those darn European secularists. Wouldn't you? Or would you just ride along and say, "Ah well, those guys in Washington have some deeply held beliefs that we should all respect."
posted on 10.22.2004 4:17 PM30
~DS~:
Only in Joe Carterland...Hey, hey, hey! I'm pretty sure I've got a trademark on that phrase; you'll be hearing from my intellectual property attorney. :) posted on 10.22.2004 4:25 PM
31
You inadvertently make many of my points for me. If their mortal enemy (Iraq) has been soundly defeated, why the urgency of a nuclear program? And, where is all this record oil money going? Their pharmaceutical industry? Agricultural breakthroughs?
To militant Muslims, there is only one reason to have nuclear weapons: to use them. Why is this such a stretch for you? The only reason for Semtex is to stitch it into your jacket and get on a Jerusalem bus. The only reason for an airline ticket is to take over the plane. The only reason for an RPG is to attack a humanitarian aid convoy. The only reason for a truck is to put a bomb in the trunk and kill Jews, Indians, Russians, Americans, Frenchmen, Serbs, Australians, or other Muslims who aren't sufficiently radicalized.
Because Afghanistan and Iraq have been neutralized, Iran is now the looniest regime in the region. That is no easy task, with Saudi Arabia and Syria on the same block. But there ya go. And a nuclear Iran is a terrifying prospect to Israel, and should be to us.
posted on 10.22.2004 4:25 PM32
Correction: Awaz is the major field in Iran. I guess I was thinking of the old foriegn minister Aziz :)
posted on 10.22.2004 4:27 PM33
Well, yeah Larry I can. I think that when the Taliban rounds up women wearing clothes showing the ankle, packs them in the soccer stadium, and stones them to death. Or when a West Bank family lovingly says goodbye to their beautiful teenage daughter, who puts on a backpack to blow up a bus stop. Or maybe it was when suicide bombers wrecked Bali--a Muslim vacation area where Americans and Bush voters are spread pretty thin indeed. Might be when a few dozen Islamowackos take over an elementary school, force children to strip down naked, starve them to death, before gunning them down as they try to escape.
Buddha statues. Yes. Didn't bother the left when the FOLLOWERS of Buddha were rounded up and killed, but you touch those ages-old pieces of rock, well, now you've just gone "over the edge", as you say.
Here's what I think, Larry. We can pour some molds, and build back the Buddha statues. Make for a nice gift to the Afghan people, even. But we can't bring back the thousands of Afghans or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were are buried in shallow graves because the West just can't be roused to give a damn.
BTW, I don't know what MOMA is, but I do know that European secularists is redundant, and if they are unlikely to project power all the way to Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing in their neighbor's yard, I can scarce imagine them making it across the pond to avenge an attack on MOMA, even if it's their own MOMA.
posted on 10.22.2004 4:35 PM34
There is, fortunately, a middle way. We destroy the nuclear factories with precision-guided bombs, and target their top leaders for assassination. The government that replaces them will do so with Damocles' Sword overhead--they will know that the only reason they are there is that the previous regime performed deeds inimical to the security interests of the United States.
Total Cost: 20 Smart Bombs, 15 Cruise Missiles, and about two weeks of the insufferable Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw doing live feeds from Teheran.
Then, repeat as necessary.
posted on 10.22.2004 4:50 PM35
I'm cool with that Kevin. It's not perfcet of course. For exmaple we can't smack Pakistan that way becuase Pakistan is doing a lot to help us right now. We're pretty lucky they have a guy in power who's willing to play ball with us. OTOH, Pakistan is at the top of the list for potential threats because they're a revolution away from becoming an Al Qaeda client state and they have maybe 30-100 nukes already. But I'm opne to tryign your plan. In answer to your earlier question about Isreal hitting Iranian enrichment facilities, that seems to me like our best military option for slowing them down.
posted on 10.22.2004 4:53 PM36
Well, isn't that something?
So why do I have this feeling that John Kerry wouldn't think much of the idea?
posted on 10.22.2004 5:02 PM37
... ok, lets try to blur black and white until things are so gray that the left is right. All we need to do is add subjective modifiers before all black and white staements. Viola! We've done it. There were no stockpiles of WMD (despite the fact that WMD has been found in Iraq) There was no active nuclear weapons program (despite nuclear weapons scientists, centrifuge parts, tons of yellow cake uranium, and thousands of pieces of radioactive equipment), there was no ongoing WMD programs (despite evidence of dual use equipment being smuggled out of the country AND chemical precursors being smuggled into syria)... Who is in denial? More on WMDs in Iraq
posted on 10.23.2004 5:02 AM38
"As of 2002, the only known store of nuclear material in Iraq is in heavyweight sealed barrels at the Tawaitha research facility south of Baghdad. It consists of several tons of low-grade uranium and is monitored by an international agency with the full co-operation of the Iraqi regime." source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm
IOW, these materials were known about and sealed under guard since 1992.
Sarin- "Some of them are very corroded. They are probably not usable, but are dangerous to the local environment," Szmajdzinski said. source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm
Mustard gas can be made from the materials available at any local pool or hot tub store. All it takes chlorine and a simple hydrocarbon. The chemical formula is Cl-CH2-CH2-S-CH2-CH2-Cl.
The "thousands of radiactive substances and items" you referred to were almost entirely from medical devices and other civilian applications and posed no potential as nuclear material or as a danger. Scraps of an old centirfuge were turned over to the CPA by Mahdi Obedi who wrote a book detailing just how derelict crappy Saddam's nuke program had become . They had been buried in his yard for years and dated from before the Gulf War.
posted on 10.23.2004 11:55 AM39
GEORGE W BUSH IN NOT A BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN!
There's no account of him being baptized either in water or the Holy Spirit. The following is an account of his spiritual path:
1984 - Mark Leaverton (a founder of Midland's Community Bible Study) … I think he probably came in 1984 to our Bible study that preceded Community Bible Study (CBS). He was the vice president's son.
1984 - George W. Bush, the oilman I prayed with to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord on April 3, 1984 has gone on to become President of the United States of America. All glory to God. What to do Now! - Confess Christ Openly and Be Baptized. *THIS NEVER HAPPENED! - Arthur Blessit at:
http://www.blessitt.com/
1985 - From GWB: Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year.
1985 - His heavy drinking was threatening his marriage so Bush began attending a community Bible study group in Midland. Before long, he was working on his father's 1988 presidential campaign (where he was assigned to consult with leaders from the religious right) and turning an eye toward the governorship of Texas.
Don Poage (One of the group leaders in Midland's Christian Bible Study): "... What I can talk about [is] .. I saw that transformative process beginning. Whether he was then quote, "saved" or not, or "born again" or not -- he made a couple of comments in core group that would lead me to believe that he was.
1986 - At Bush's 40th birthday party (July 6, 1986), with the wine flowing freely, he once again "couldn't shut it off," says Don Evans, Bush's friend and campaign finance chairman. Karen Hughes, Bush's spokeswomen said ... He has said he gave up drinking the day after his 40th birthday.
CNN:Bush acknowledges 1976 DUI charge - November 2, 2000
Bush said, "I was able to share with some of the men and women here that I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then."
The Jesus Factor:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/wead.html
Doug Wead's advise to GWB's Dad in 1987 Presidential Race: "So, [in] my memorandum I was saying to him, "Look, Mr. Vice President, if you're asked the question, "Are you a born-again Christian?" you can't say no. You can say anything else, but you can't say no.
US News Online, "George W. Bush: Running on His Faith"
GWB: "Would you call your experience born-again? I call it a renewal of faith. But I could say that. I would say that. But you've got to understand, a born-again experience connotes a moment. And I would say my experience was the planting of a seed, where something grew, grew quite rapidly. But I got back to Midland. I remember reading the Bible. The words in the Bible made–you know, the same words–I began to have a better understanding. And so I would call it a renewal, an acceptance of Christ."
Interview with the Baptist Press, the national news service of the Southern Baptist Convention, August 31, 2000
GWB: "I would describe myself as a man who was raised a Christian, who sought redemption and found it in Jesus Christ. And that's important [to admit the need for redemption] by the way, for someone running for public office. It's a humbling experience to make that admission. I admit I'm a lowly sinner. It's that admission that led me to redemption and led me to Christ. Without making that admission, I don't think there's such a thing as redemption."
Town Meeting. Columbia, South Carolina, February 12, 2000
GWB: "Well, I appreciate that. As you know, during a debate, one of the debates in the public arena, I was asked about a philosopher who influenced my life. I didn't spend much time thinking about an answer. It just came out, and I said it was Christ, and it was Christ. "What does that mean? Why?" he said. And I said, "Because he's changed my heart." And the man said, "Could you explain it further?" And basically what I said is it's kind of hard to explain it in 30-second sound bytes. It's hard to explain unless you have witnessed it yourself, and so it is hard to explain."
Wead: "But with the son, it was just instant. In 1998, 1999, 2000, within five minutes of any meetings with evangelicals, within minutes, they instantly knew he's a born-again Christian."
Wead: "I remember him (GW) reviewing the memorandum on Texas, and he just lit up. He said, "Ah, you know, I could do this in Texas. I could make this work in Texas." There was no secret he was talking about running for governor. But he'd see this, and said, "Whoa." To me, it was like the missing piece for him. Now he had become an evangelical Christian himself. So he's reading this strategy, and he's thinking, "Whoa, this could certainly work for me."
US News Online, "George W. Bush: Running on His Faith"
GWB on being an evangelical: "I'm not even sure what the characteristics of an evangelical are in common parlance. I think if someone prays– I pray. I do. I believe in the power of prayer. I can't tell you how comforting it is to me to hear people say, "I pray for you." And it happens a lot. It does. And I say, "Thank you." I think an evangelical believes in the power of prayer."
Wead: "We won the [election] in 1988 with the largest percentage of evangelical support ever in American history, more than Reagan got in 1984 when he had the landslide that carried every state in the nation but Minnesota -- by far more than George W. Bush had in 2000."
Wead: "I think it might've been 1997, before his re-election as governor -- George W. Bush was going to meet with some evangelical leaders. I called him to warn him of this surprise question that they occasionally pop. I repeated the question, which is, "If you were to die and suddenly appear before the pearly gates, and Peter said, 'Why should I let you in?' what would your answer be?"
He cut me off. He interrupted me before I even finished the question, and said, "I know, I know, I know. Because of the blood of Jesus Christ and because of his death for my sins," which is the argument evangelicals make -- that no one can be good enough to go to heaven, that the death of Christ is a sacrifice for our sins and you accept it in faith. That's the whole idea. So, no problem for him. I mean, he understood where evangelicals were coming from."
Wead: "Well, my advice to George Bush Sr. was, "Signal early, signal often." My advice to George W. Bush would be, "Signal early." The reason George Bush Sr. needed to signal often was because he was not known as someone who had sympathies towards evangelicals, or even understood them. So he needed to drive that home. ..."
GWB Signals toooo often to mention.
1999 - "Pastor Craig said that America is starved for honest leaders. He told the story of Moses, asked by God to lead his people to a land of milk and honey." ... "He was talking to you," my mother later said. ... "hearing this rousing sermon, to make most of every moment, during my inaugural church service, I gradually felt more comfortable with the prospect of a presidential campaign" Bush sees his presidency as willed by God.
GWB IS NO MOSES!
John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew 5:1 - And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
1 John 2:4 - He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
2 John 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
posted on 10.23.2004 6:40 PM40
So let me get this straight. Your objection to the survey is that they use adjectives. Seeing as how the administration made such qualified claims in the build up to war such as "stockpiles" of WMD, it would seem only reasonable that the questions asked would mirror the adminstrations attempts at deception. Maybe just interject a bit of common sense. Do you actually think that the adminstration was trying to sell the American public on going to war where there was a negligable amount of WMD. How does that square with Bush's claims that Saddam was a grave and gathering threat? It doesn't. Here's something from Powell's speech to the UN: "Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. But UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoonful of this deadly material. And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had." Actually, read the whole damn thing: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm.He's suggesting the existence of a large scale program.
What's perhaps the silliest thing about your criticism is that the inclusion of modifiers tends to make claims more explict and clear rather than vague and ambigious. Modifiers exist for a reason. They add meaning where it is often elusive. For example, if I were to say that Bill is taller than Bob, on the face of it there is no way to distingush this from the statment that Joe is taller than Bob. At this point all we have is information about the relationship between Bill and Joe to Bob, but we don't know anything about the relationship between Joe and Bill. However, if we were to say that Bill is substantially taller than Bob and Joe is slightly taller than Bob we can now infer some sort of relationship between Bill and Joe. Namely that Bill is taller than Joe. Essentially your complaint here is that the questions asked didn't allow for enough confusion. Way to go. We already know that Joe doesn't believe in science, but it now appears that he has launched a Holy Crusade against grammar. Good luck with that.
41
BCB,
So let me get this straight. Your objection to the survey is that they use
adjectives.
No. My objection to the survey is that is uses ambiguous adjectives.
How does that square with Bush's claims that Saddam was a grave and gathering threat? It doesn't.
There was never a question – and there still isn’t – of whether Saddam was a “grave and gathering” threat. That is a given. The question is whether he was an “imminent” threat as Sen. John Edwards claimed.
Actually, read the whole damn thing: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm.He's
suggesting the existence of a large scale program.
He’s suggesting that large quantities of chemical agents are unaccounted for. That is still true. You seem to be under the impression that since little was found that no more exists. That’s a dangerous assumption.
What's perhaps the silliest thing about your criticism is that the inclusion of
modifiers tends to make claims more explict and clear rather than vague and
ambigious.
That certainly can be true but is not the case in this survey. The modifiers were explicitly selected to keep their point from being disproved. What counts as a “major program” to me might not be the same for you. In fact, I am fairly sure that is the case since you seem tot think that the capability to produce mustard gas constitutes a “major” program.
We already know that Joe doesn't believe in science, but it now appears that he has launched a Holy Crusade against grammar. Good luck with that.
Oh, I believe in science. What I don’t believe in is bad philosophy. Unfortunately, some people can’t tell the difference between the two.
42
Joe:
The question is whether he was an “imminent” threat as Sen. John Edwards claimed.Don't forget about Fleischer, McLellan, Bartlett, and Rumsfeld.
What counts as a “major program” to me might not be the same for you.Screw what you or I think is a "major program." I'd be more interested in what people like the ISG think is a major program. How many active, major programs did the ISG list in their key findings?
Oh, I believe in science.Except when it contradicts the six-thousand-year-old oral traditions of a nomadic people, of course. ;) posted on 10.23.2004 11:29 PM
43
Tgirsch,
Screw what you or I think is a "major program."
Actually, since it was possible that I or some of my fellow Marines would have been the ones affected by Saddam's mustard gas program, I think I should be able to determine what constitutes "major."
I'd be more interested in what people like the ISG think is a major program.
Unlike the survey, the ISG doesn't use the phrase "major program" in their summary of key findings.
How many active, major programs did the ISG list in their key findings?
If you are really interested in what the ISG thinks then you should do what they do and focus on the overall picture:
The goal of this report is to provide facts and meaning concerning the Regime’s experience with WMD. It aims to provide a dynamic analysis rather than simple static accounting of the debris found following Operation Iraqi Freedom. The report will put into context the WMD activities of the Regime and the trends and directions of the Regime with respect to WMD. Artificially separating the WMD from the Regime would not provide a synthetic picture. Such a picture would seem to be more instructive than a simple frozen inventory of the program remnants at one point in time.
I have yet to see one critic of the war make their case based on such a dynamic review of the evidence and the direction that the Iraqi threat was heading. Care to be the first to use the ISG's findings to make that case? (And before you go with the "sanctions were working" thesis I would suggest reading the report.)
posted on 10.24.2004 1:06 AM44
Joe,
Sorry to have to do this to you bud, but:
Is it your perception that that experts mostly agree that just before the war Iraq:
Had WMD – Bush supporters 56%; Kerry supporters 18%
This question is simply too confusing to be useful. Is it asking whether before the war the experts believed Iraq had WMDs or is it asking whether that is what the experts are saying now. It becomes especially confusing when combined with the next question.
Joe, I think I know why you're such a big Bush supporter. He proves that you can be semi-literate and still make it. That is, he gives you hope. Why do I say this. Because the answer to your problem is easy to see. First, the appearance of "that" signals the proposition that these experts agree on. Second, if you didn't pick up on that, you should have been able to figure it out based on the tenses. That is, "experts mostly agree" is in the present tense whereas "Iraq had WMD" is in the past tense. Now let's plug the tenses in and see where we get a grammatically sentance. 1. Just before the war experts agree that...Oops, no tense agreement. To make this correct we would have to say "experts agreed". 2. Just before the was Iraq had WMD. Notice the agreement here.
posted on 10.24.2004 2:17 AM45
Joe:
That certainly can be true but is not the case in this survey. The modifiers were explicitly selected to keep their point from being disproved. What counts as a “major program” to me might not be the same for you. In fact, I am fairly sure that is the case since you seem tot think that the capability to produce mustard gas constitutes a “major” program.
Doing away with the modifiers would simply intensify the problem, so I'm still right. Sure, I suppose that they could have phrased the question in a super-explcit manner. For example, "Before the war do you think that Iraq had 10000 gallons of x and 40 y". But I imagine everyone would just say no because no one could say that they new the exact nature of Iraqs "weapons" programs. On the other hand, if we just throw out the modifiers all together we run into the same problem. For example, "do you think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction". But let's not forget that "mass" is modifying "destruction", so I suppose that has to go. I mean, "mass" may mean something different to you than it does to me. So the question would be "do you think that Iraq had weapons of destruction". But I think weapons cause destruction by definition, so all we mean is "do you think Iraq had weapons". So maybe we went in there because Saddam had a pocket knife an a board with a rusty nail through it. I know I feel safer now that he's gone.
Here's another problem. You say that the whole problem with this study is that these modifiers mean different things to different people, or as you say, they're "subjective". The problem with saying that is if they truly are subjective then you would see wide variation in responses, but your whole problem is that the results are too uniform. As you put it, "The ones used in the PIPA report are so embarrassingly obvious that it could be used as a textbook case of how to ask questions to get the results you want".
posted on 10.24.2004 2:35 AM46
ok, just one more:
The problem with this passage is that the conclusion of the PPIA doesn’t match the data. For example, they claim that a Gallup International poll says that a majority of people in the world opposed the US having gone to war in Iraq. But the actual poll only shows that “approximately half” opposed the war “under any circumstances.”
Dude, there's no inconsistency here. The Gallup poll says that they would not support under "any circumstances". That means that if had WMD's and was eating babies they would have opposed the invasion presumably. We could infer that approximatly half would support the invasion under some circumstances. But it does not follow that they would support the invasion under the present circumstances. For example, if he had WMD and was eating babies they would have suported it, but since he didn't, they don't. Get it?
posted on 10.24.2004 2:40 AM47
Joe:
I think I should be able to determine what constitutes "major."For personal purposes, sure. But are you a WMD expert? And is your opinion sufficient to justify a war? I don't think your ego is quite that large.
Unlike the survey, the ISG doesn't use the phrase "major program" in their summary of key findings.Yeah, but it does say things like "ISG judges that Iraq
unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter" and such things. But I know, I know, I'm paying way too much attention to those "key findings" and ignoring the trivialities that allow you to keep rationalizing your support for the war. ;)
And before you go with the "sanctions were working" thesis I would suggest reading the report.Yeah, it's not as if the report says thate "UN sanctions curbed Saddam’s ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq," or that "Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real
external threats." You're right, that doesn't sound terribly effective to me. To be fair, the report also says "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999," but given the apparent efficacy of the sanctions as stated by the report, the logical step would be to tighten and toughen the sanctions, rather than invade. posted on 10.24.2004 12:55 PM
48
"Sorry to have to do this to you bud, but:
Is it your perception that that experts mostly agree that just before the war Iraq:
Had WMD – Bush supporters 56%; Kerry supporters 18%"
****
If true, this is an amazing statistic that 82% of Kerry supporters believed that their candidate was lying about WMD's in Iraq.
49
Kevin W:
You miss the point. The question talks about what people now perceive, not what they perceived before the war. The question is basically "Do you believe that most experts right now, today believe that Iraq had WMDs just before the war (and did something with them, hid them, sold them, etc.). Right now, today, 56% of Bush supporters say "yes," that they do believe that the expert consensus is that Hussein had WMDs immediately prior to our invasion.
posted on 10.24.2004 11:32 PM50
Condescension and pride routinely indicate a less intelligent perspective, and, actually indicate an academic disadvantage to whoever is engaged in either or both.
It's comfortable and self-affirming for "liberals" to perceive "Bush supporters" as
"less intelligent" and therefore, lesser in humanity, while the perspective also encourages a false sense of pride and self promotion for those "liberals" who generalize so. But, what it most indicates is that it's a fallacy to assume you're at some inherent advantage over others just because of some political candidate or another...now THAT is stupid.
I can assure you that, among all the many "liberal" comments I read posted on the internet, they do focus on the arrogant: that they are assumed superior, that anyone who challenges or disagrees with what they assume to be supportable are inferior, the whole emphasis on them as above and everyone else as beneath, as to capabilities, value, "intelligence," worth, even.
Which in and of itself indicates to nearly everyone else a lesser capacity of insight. You can't accurately perceive anyone/everything in your experience if you assume a superior position, based upon nothing but the assumption of a superior position.
There just aren't enough words for "liberals" and the comments section here is proof of that. Unfortunately, there's also abundant proof of the foolishness of the very principle that they attempt to comment upon.
posted on 10.25.2004 8:54 AM52
First, let me say that I am a born again Christian. I have a personal love relationship with God. I have become convinced that America's invasion of Iraq was wrong. Prayerfully, I have concluded that it was sin of Old Testament Biblical proportions.
American public support was based on incorrect, outdated, and exaggerated information; and on fear.
I supported the war in Iraq reluctantly. Pres. Bush and Sec. of State Powell said that they were an imminent threat, that they had major amounts of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and the materials to produce tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. Pres. Bush in the State of the union address that that Saddam Hussein had recently tried to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa. And Iraq has ties with al Quada. I was relived when, with the threat of war, Iraq seemed to be cooperating more with the UN inspectors. But with the stakes as high as they were, I supported the administration’s decision because they had the intelligence reports.
Then our forces cut through Iraq like a hot knife through butter. Iraq had no air defense and used no chemical or biological weapons. No WMDs were found. Nation building doesn’t seem to be going well. We’re now totally bogged down and the death count goes up every day. The bi-partisan 9/11 Commission Report says there’s no credible link between Saddam and Al Quada. Pres. Bush’s own inspector, after all this time says that Iraq’s WMDs were gone after 1991 or so. And why did Saddam not fully cooperate with UN inspectors if he’d really disarmed? To bluff Iran into not attacking him. Makes sense, right?
And what has this fiasco cost?
• Around 1100 American soldiers dead,
• 200+ coalition soldiers dead,
• 160 or so contractors dead via attacks or execution,
• 13,000-16,000 Iraqi civilians dead,
• 100,000+ Iraqi combatants dead
• Thousands wounded.
I am praying that God will forgive America for its arrogance and greed and for using it’s might against a far, far weaker country that was no threat to America or to its neighbors. I pray that America be forgiven for this unnecessary violent loss of life. I pray that God will show us mercy.
posted on 10.25.2004 11:39 AM53
elliot,
I am praying that God will forgive America for its arrogance and greed and for using it’s might against a far, far weaker country that was no threat to America or to its neighbors. I pray that America be forgiven for this unnecessary violent loss of life. I pray that God will show us mercy.
And I pray that God will forgive Christians who stand by while hundreds of thousands are raped, tortured, and murdered and, to compound the sin, denigrate those who attempt to put an end to such evil.
posted on 10.25.2004 11:53 AM54
Joe Carter,
I did not say that Saddam was innocent, merely that he was not the gathering threat to the US that the public was led to believe. Pres. Bush's case for war was based on Saddam's threat to the US, not his tratment of Iraqis.
I support our use of force against those that are real and imminent threats to the US or its allies. While I don't believe that the US should be the constable of the world, I do support our participation in the use of force as a last resort against those that are engaged in genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Your point however, brings to mind that I should have included contrition for America's rape, torture and murder of prisoners.
posted on 10.25.2004 12:19 PM55
elliot,
Pres. Bush's case for war was based on Saddam's threat to the US, not his tratment of Iraqis.
Actually, it was based on both of those reasons (as well as many others). Reread the authorization for the use of force that was delivered by Congress and you will see that one of the justifications was that Saddam, “persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by (4) continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region,…”
Your point however, brings to mind that I should have included contrition for America's rape, torture and murder of prisoners.
“America” didn’t rape, torture, or murder any prisoners. Those crimes were committed by individuals who are getting their due punishment. Should I pray that God forgives you for the rapes and murders that are committed in your city and state?
posted on 10.25.2004 12:32 PM56
Joe Carter
I should have said before that I did not intend to denigrate others but to state my conviction of our shared responsibility in a war that I have come to see as wrong.
Again, I’ll states that the primary case for war made to the American public was one of national security. Any argument related to the Iraqi people was an add-on.
While I try to keep myself well informed, I don’t claim to be an expert. But my impression has been that the Kurdish “safe haven” had resulted in relative stability and prosperity for the Kurds. They may have been better off than the rest of Iraq in that foreign aid could actually reach the people rather than being siphoned off by Saddam. This, while deplorable, did not reach to a level requiring white-hot-war. It was a bad situation, not solved but under control.
I do hold our government responsible for the actions of its soldiers and its contractors. And we are responsible for our government. While the worst of it may be blamed on some individuals, it does seem fair to me to question the training, supervision, staffing and orders that made up the environment under which this occurred. Plus there are the higher level stories about prisoner treatment, like today’s story on our CIA secretly moving prisoners out of Iraq, possibly in violation of international treaties. There was a report a couple of months ago that our goverment had purposely failed to inform Red Cross that we even had certain men in custody, apparently in violation of international treaties. America should diligently follow treaties on prisoner treatment because we’re America and America is supposed to be good. We’re supposed to be good even when the other side is relentlessly bad. Like John McCain said this week on ABC’s “This Week”, "The thing that separates us from the enemy is our respect for human rights."
posted on 10.25.2004 2:01 PM57
"I am praying that God will forgive America for its arrogance and greed and for using it’s might against a far, far weaker country that was no threat to America or to its neighbors. I pray that America be forgiven for this unnecessary violent loss of life. I pray that God will show us mercy. "
*********
You are an idiot and a fool. It would come as a surprise to the Kuwaitis that Iraq wasn't a threat to its neighbors. Or the Kurds. Or the Iranians. Or why worry about neighbors at all? How about the hundreds of thousands buried in shallow graves all across Iraq?
If Iraq was a "far weaker" country, you would've had trouble convincing us before the war of that fact. What did I hear, nonstop? About the herculean courage of the Republican Guards, about their willingness to use WMD's on our troops (which, in fact, the Iraqis did), about the "steel ring" around Baghdad. Uh huh.
posted on 10.25.2004 2:09 PM58
elliot,
I should have said before that I did not intend to denigrate others but to
state my conviction of our shared responsibility in a war that I have come to
see as wrong.
I also apologize for coming across so caustically. I didn’t intend for my comments to be as rude as they must have sounded.
Again, I?ll states that the primary case for war made to the American public was one of national security. Any argument related to the Iraqi people was an add-on.
This is the problem I have with the critics of the war. They don’t appear to have paid much attention to what justifications were given prior to the war. The argument for the Iraqi people wasn’t an “add-on” but a primary justification going back at least to the “regime change” bill that Clinton signed in 1998.
While I try to keep myself well informed, I don?t claim to be an expert. But my impression has been that the Kurdish ?safe haven? had resulted in relative stability and prosperity for the Kurds. They may have been better off than the rest of Iraq in that foreign aid could actually reach the people rather than being siphoned off by Saddam. This, while deplorable, did not reach to a level
requiring white-hot-war. It was a bad situation, not solved but under control.
The Kurd’s were safe from direct attack by Saddam but not from the al Queda terrorists that he sponsored to attack those in that protected area. But the real question is how long were we going to have to stay in that area protecting the Kurds? Were we just going to stay there indefinitely so that Saddam wouldn’t slaughter them again?
I do hold our government responsible for the actions of its soldiers and its contractors. And we are responsible for our government.
The government has to be held accountable for the lawful orders that are given to the troops. But when they “go off the reservation” the government only is accountable for holding them responsible.
America should diligently follow treaties on prisoner treatment because we?re America and America is supposed to be good.
I agree that we should treat prisoners humanely. If any laws were broken then those who disobeyed should be held responsible and punished accordingly.
posted on 10.25.2004 2:20 PM59
Kevin W
ad hominem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem,
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
60
"Should I pray that God forgives you for the rapes and murders that are committed in your city and state?"
That's a strawman, Joe. He was saying that the behavior of individuals in our government/military reflects on our nation as a whole in the eyes of the world, not that the guilt of some individuals in a municipality implies the guilt of the others.
Kevin W, you're behaving entirely too aggressively and irrationally. You seem to be speaking from some kind of idealized, battle of good and evil perspective which ignores the reality of the situation; I suspect this is similar to the thinking of some of the survey respondents. I must say I'm impressed at the patience and tact shown by DS.
"This is the problem I have with the critics of the war. They don’t appear to have paid much attention to what justifications were given prior to the war."
Hm, then your problem would be with the whole country, not just the war critics. You seem to be in a very small minority in thinking that "the argument for the Iraqi people wasn’t an “add-on” but a primary justification" for the war. If it was a primary justification, why wasn't it made clearer by the administration? Come on, this position really seems untenable.
"The government has to be held accountable for the lawful orders that are given to the troops. But when they “go off the reservation” the government only is accountable for holding them responsible."
Way to hold on to your moral high ground. So you don't think that the instances of prisoner abuse and human rights violations could be indicative of larger problems and trends that warrant investigation?
posted on 10.25.2004 2:50 PM61
Joe Carter
You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you for reasoned discussion. You and I may just need to agree to disagree.
We'll never know how the situation with the reported al Queda terrorists and the Kurds would have progressed and what other approaches could have been taken. What do you consider the best sources of information on al Queda & the Kurds?
It would have been OK with me to maintain the safe haven and the no-fly zones permanently. I could even imagine supporting these unilateral action to maintain these to protect life and regional stability.
posted on 10.25.2004 3:08 PM62
I do wish you'd drop the canard "secular left."
Lots of us are religious, you know.
posted on 10.25.2004 6:55 PM63
Kevin said: You are an idiot and a fool.
That must be an example of being full of "Christ Love" like in that movie Saved. Great flick.
posted on 10.25.2004 9:08 PM64
This war is one of good versus evil, as many of them are.
And Elliot is an idiot and a fool if he believes that Saddam did not pose a threat to his neighbors, and so are you. Elliot says that this was a mistake of "Old Testament proportions". Like what? Give me an example. I've got a copy of the Old Testament right here, on my desk. I'd like to see a parallel. "Bad intelligence"? Are you making this up as you go along? Or are you just trying to make a partisan attack sound more principled because it might be rooted in Biblical truth? Chapter and verse, please. And all those things that you believed going in to the war were true: Hussein had those chemical and biological agents, and the capacity to build a lot more. Come on.
Here's an idea, Elliot: quit sniveling, get off you knees, quit praying for forgiveness over things you're not yourself guilty of, and try this--thank God that we disposed of the 4th largest standing army in the world with a minimum of casualties. Pray to God for the continued safety of our forces. Pray for a spiritual awakening in that part of the world. And pray for victory.
posted on 10.26.2004 9:38 AM65
"This war is one of good versus evil, as many of them are."
You'd obviously like it to be, so you could feel really righteous and mighty about it. Kevin, your act is totally transparent to everyone else, why not just drop it and deal with reality? You're not helping anyone this way.
"And all those things that you believed going in to the war were true: Hussein had those chemical and biological agents, and the capacity to build a lot more. Come on."
No, he didn't. There you go again. That's the whole point. Saddam did *not* possess the capabilities that the public was told he possessed; the pre-war intelligence was known to be unreliable, the President exaggerated the case to the public, and it turned out to be wrong. We were told that Saddam had stockpiles of biological weapons and nuclear capability -- he didn't.
Here's a nice, succinct article for you to peruse. The New Yorker endorsed Kerry, their first political endorsement in 80 years:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors
Happy reading.
posted on 10.26.2004 10:51 AM66
Oh well. I guess I'll go and vote for Kerry then because of what the New Yorker says.
No, fault Bush for the war if you want. To us, Hussein had to go. We gave many reasons for that fact, some of which were more valid than others. If you want to deny Bush a second term because of it, that's your prerogative.
But Kerry supporters have a bigger problem. He voted against the first Gulf War, despite an overwhelming coalition, UN support, and an invasion by Iraq of its neighbor Kuwait. He voted FOR the war that is ongoing today, and has said that even knowing what he knows now about the lack of WMD's, he would've voted for it anyway. ???????
posted on 10.26.2004 1:38 PM67
"Oh well. I guess I'll go and vote for Kerry then because of what the New Yorker says."
When you're dealing with facts, it's not an issue of who said it, but whether or not it's true. I can see how you might have difficulty with that, but it's an important distinction.
posted on 10.26.2004 3:33 PM