More detailed numbers at the link.
In Spite of Media Coverage, Widespread Belief in Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraqi Links to Al Qaeda Remain Virtually Unchanged
Wednesday April 21, 11:44 am ET
ROCHESTER, N.Y., April 21 /PRNewswire/ -- A new Harris Poll finds that public perceptions of the facts that led up to the invasion of Iraq remain almost unchanged in spite of a barrage of media reports that might have changed them.
For example:
-- A 51% to 38% majority continues to believe that "Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction," virtually unchanged since February.
-- A 49% to 36% plurality of all adults continues to believe that "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda has been found." These numbers have scarcely changed since June 2003.
-- A 51% to 43% plurality continues to believe that "intelligence given before the war to President Bush by the CIA and others about Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction" was "completely" or "somewhat" accurate. In February a 50% to 45% plurality believed this.
-- While a 43% plurality believes that the "U.S. government deliberately exaggerated the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to increase support for war," a 50% plurality (also virtually unchanged over the last eight months) continues to believe that the government "tried to present the information accurately."
These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 979 adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive® between April 8 and 15, 2004.
Sense of being "bogged down" increases
Only one of the eight questions asked in this survey on Iraq found any significant change over the last two months. Those who believe that it is "very likely" that the U.S. will get "bogged down for a long time in Iraq and not be able to create a stable government there" have increased from 37% in February to 45% now. However this has had no significant impact on the number of people who "favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops there until there is a stable government " (42%) or those who favor "bringing most of our troops home in the next year" (51%).
A case of cognitive dissonance?
The remarkable stability of these numbers suggest that people have made up their minds on many of the key issues relating to weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda, and that it would take something very big to change them. It seems that people believe media reports which fit with their opinions and reject those which do not. The balance on several of the key questions is tilted roughly 50% to 40% in favor of the administration.
The potential impact of these issues in the November elections
If President Bush continues to enjoy this modest but significant advantage between now and November, it will be difficult for Senator Kerry and the Democrats to use these issues against him in the election campaign. If, on the other hand, a substantial majority of the public comes to believe that there were no weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al Qaeda, or that President Bush exaggerated the evidence to increase support for the invasion, the result could be disastrous for him.
Ryan
American Public Remains Willfully Ignorant
- Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
American Public Remains Willfully Ignorant
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 9:20 pm
- Contact:
"Wilful ignorance" is an accurate term for the approach of the conservative right these days. As demonstrated by their lashing out against Woodward, who I understand is a conservative Republican himself, there are many who have elevated this president to a level of infallibility. In their minds, neither he nor his administration can do wrong, and anyone the slightest bit critical of this White House is not only wrong (without even considering the substance of the criticism) but immediately worthy of destruction for questioning the sanctity of the office. It is a form of hero worship that I haven't seen since Reagan was president.
Just like some kids don't want to believe that there is no Santa Claus, the Republican right refuses to tolerate any criticism of this administration, assuming that it is all partisan and unworthy of consideration. With the vitriol being spewed while they're in power, it's scary to think about the outrage likely to result if they should actually win a presidental election in 2004 (as opposed to being awarded the office by the Supreme Court).
The rest of the world has obviously noticed the insane and intolerant bent much of our populace has taken. For one example, see this linked column from a Canadian columnist:
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/R ... rtainment/
For those fellow Kentuckians interested, you should peruse the political postings at wildcatfaithful.com for an example of how nuts some of our fellow citizens are on this particular subject. While a few attempt to do so, it is simply impossible to reason with some of these folks.
Just like some kids don't want to believe that there is no Santa Claus, the Republican right refuses to tolerate any criticism of this administration, assuming that it is all partisan and unworthy of consideration. With the vitriol being spewed while they're in power, it's scary to think about the outrage likely to result if they should actually win a presidental election in 2004 (as opposed to being awarded the office by the Supreme Court).
The rest of the world has obviously noticed the insane and intolerant bent much of our populace has taken. For one example, see this linked column from a Canadian columnist:
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/R ... rtainment/
For those fellow Kentuckians interested, you should peruse the political postings at wildcatfaithful.com for an example of how nuts some of our fellow citizens are on this particular subject. While a few attempt to do so, it is simply impossible to reason with some of these folks.
- lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Patrick M wrote:http://wildcatfaithful.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=26e6a2e1e7b85a5777227aae6f5bbe2b&forumid=153
Intelligent conversation that ain't.
Because, you see, Bush is a Good Guy for admitting his DUI, while Clinton is an Evil Bastard for suggesting that he didn't inhale.
And let's not forget Whitewater!
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
Re: American Public Remains Willfully Ignorant
Rspaight wrote:If President Bush continues to enjoy this modest but significant advantage between now and November, it will be difficult for Senator Kerry and the Democrats to use these issues against him in the election campaign.
Kerry is not going to have any success using the Iraq issue. The majority of Americans are not going to be convinced that the Iraq War was a mistake. They don't really care whether there were weapons of mass destruction, they don't care whether Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda, they don't care about Halliburton's profiteering. They don't care whether Bush started planning the war as soon as he took office and diverted funds from other things to do it. All they care about is that we kicked Saddam's butt. Kerry had better focus his energy on other issues if he wants to win.
- Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Agreed. The administration is doing all the damage to itself on these issues that anyone could hope for, and it's not budging the numbers. Kerry needs to go after domestic policy and let Bush continue to implode on foreign policy on his own.
The risk, though, is that Kerry could appear out-of-touch and irrelevant talking about, say, school vouchers when dead soldiers dominate the front page.
Ryan
The risk, though, is that Kerry could appear out-of-touch and irrelevant talking about, say, school vouchers when dead soldiers dominate the front page.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
Pulp fictions triumph over truth
For those who backed Bush over war in Iraq, the idea of proof has shifted from fact to fervour
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday April 29, 2004
The Guardian
Perhaps the most important divide in the presidential campaign is between fact and fiction. There are, of course, other sharp distinctions based on region and religiosity, guns and gays, abstinence and abortion. But were the election to be decided on domestic concerns alone, George Bush would be near certain to join the ranks of one-term presidents - like his father after the aura of the Gulf war evaporated.
But one year after Bush's triumphant May Day landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln and appearance behind a "Mission Accomplished" sign, his splendid little war has entered a Stalingrad-like phase of urban siege and house-to-house combat. April has been the bloodiest month by far - 122 US soldiers killed compared with 73 last April in the supposed last month of the war. The unending war has inspired among Bush's backers a rally-round-the-flag effect, a redoubling of belief.
They believe in the cause as articulated by the vice president, Dick Cheney, this week in his speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, where Winston Churchill delivered his "iron curtain" oration. "You and I are living in such a time" of the "gravest of threats", said Cheney. Once again, he explained the motive for the Iraq war, implicitly conflating Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida and oblivious to the failure to discover WMD.
"His regime cultivated ties to terror," he said, "and had built, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction." And Saddam "would still be in power", he continued, coming to the point of his allegory, if John Kerry, cast as Neville Chamberlain to Bush's Churchill, had had his way.
These misperceptions are pillars of Bush's support, according to a study by the University of Maryland: 57 % of those surveyed "believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaida", and 45% "believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida has been found". Moreover, 65% believe that "experts" have confirmed that Iraq had WMD.
Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had WMD, 72% said they would vote for Bush and 23% for Kerry. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al-Qaida, 62% said they would vote for Bush and 36% for Kerry. The reason given by respondents for their views was that they had heard these claims from the Bush administration.
These political pulp fictions are believed out of faith and fear. This is a classic case study in "the will to believe", as the American philosopher William James called it. The greater insecurity would be not to believe Bush. It would mean the president had lied on issues of national security. And how could the Iraq war be seen as a pure, moral choice once good had been shown to be false? The idea of proof has shifted from fact to fervour.
The attack lines against Kerry are that he is an opponent of national security and un-American. When Kerry committed the gaffe of uttering the truth that many world leaders secretly hope for his victory, he provided the Bush campaign with an opening. The secretary of commerce, Donald Evans, has repeatedly said that Kerry "looks French". The Republican house majority leader, Tom DeLay, begins every speech: "As John Kerry would say, bonjour."
The European mission this month of Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat on the foreign relations committee, is a telling if overlooked footnote to the campaign xenophobia. After meetings with Jacques Chirac and at Downing Street, he learned first-hand of the Bush administration's almost complete lack of consultation. Chirac offered first steps toward French assistance in Iraq, and Biden wrote a letter spelling them out to Bush, who referred him to the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who in turn politely listened and never responded.
Meanwhile, the Republican chairman of the committee, Senator Richard Lugar, who has been granted just one meeting in the past year with the president, remarked to negligible press notice: "The diplomacy is deficient. By that I simply mean not many people agree with us, or like us, or are prepared to work with us. That will really have to change." A senate source told me: "The only hope for real internationalisation is in regime change in the United States."
The brazen smears about Kerry's wounds and medals, his voting record on military programmes as a senator, and his loyalty, have been communicated by the Bush-Cheney campaign through an estimated $50m in TV and radio advertising in less than 60 days in 17 swing states. This storm of unremitting negativity has bolstered the faith of his supporters, tested by recent events, and has managed to maintain the contest at a draw.
The attacks against Kerry are a bodyguard of lies to protect the original ones who are the praetorian guard of Bush's presidency.
· Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and Washington bureau chief of Salon.com
For those who backed Bush over war in Iraq, the idea of proof has shifted from fact to fervour
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday April 29, 2004
The Guardian
Perhaps the most important divide in the presidential campaign is between fact and fiction. There are, of course, other sharp distinctions based on region and religiosity, guns and gays, abstinence and abortion. But were the election to be decided on domestic concerns alone, George Bush would be near certain to join the ranks of one-term presidents - like his father after the aura of the Gulf war evaporated.
But one year after Bush's triumphant May Day landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln and appearance behind a "Mission Accomplished" sign, his splendid little war has entered a Stalingrad-like phase of urban siege and house-to-house combat. April has been the bloodiest month by far - 122 US soldiers killed compared with 73 last April in the supposed last month of the war. The unending war has inspired among Bush's backers a rally-round-the-flag effect, a redoubling of belief.
They believe in the cause as articulated by the vice president, Dick Cheney, this week in his speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, where Winston Churchill delivered his "iron curtain" oration. "You and I are living in such a time" of the "gravest of threats", said Cheney. Once again, he explained the motive for the Iraq war, implicitly conflating Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida and oblivious to the failure to discover WMD.
"His regime cultivated ties to terror," he said, "and had built, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction." And Saddam "would still be in power", he continued, coming to the point of his allegory, if John Kerry, cast as Neville Chamberlain to Bush's Churchill, had had his way.
These misperceptions are pillars of Bush's support, according to a study by the University of Maryland: 57 % of those surveyed "believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaida", and 45% "believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida has been found". Moreover, 65% believe that "experts" have confirmed that Iraq had WMD.
Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had WMD, 72% said they would vote for Bush and 23% for Kerry. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al-Qaida, 62% said they would vote for Bush and 36% for Kerry. The reason given by respondents for their views was that they had heard these claims from the Bush administration.
These political pulp fictions are believed out of faith and fear. This is a classic case study in "the will to believe", as the American philosopher William James called it. The greater insecurity would be not to believe Bush. It would mean the president had lied on issues of national security. And how could the Iraq war be seen as a pure, moral choice once good had been shown to be false? The idea of proof has shifted from fact to fervour.
The attack lines against Kerry are that he is an opponent of national security and un-American. When Kerry committed the gaffe of uttering the truth that many world leaders secretly hope for his victory, he provided the Bush campaign with an opening. The secretary of commerce, Donald Evans, has repeatedly said that Kerry "looks French". The Republican house majority leader, Tom DeLay, begins every speech: "As John Kerry would say, bonjour."
The European mission this month of Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat on the foreign relations committee, is a telling if overlooked footnote to the campaign xenophobia. After meetings with Jacques Chirac and at Downing Street, he learned first-hand of the Bush administration's almost complete lack of consultation. Chirac offered first steps toward French assistance in Iraq, and Biden wrote a letter spelling them out to Bush, who referred him to the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who in turn politely listened and never responded.
Meanwhile, the Republican chairman of the committee, Senator Richard Lugar, who has been granted just one meeting in the past year with the president, remarked to negligible press notice: "The diplomacy is deficient. By that I simply mean not many people agree with us, or like us, or are prepared to work with us. That will really have to change." A senate source told me: "The only hope for real internationalisation is in regime change in the United States."
The brazen smears about Kerry's wounds and medals, his voting record on military programmes as a senator, and his loyalty, have been communicated by the Bush-Cheney campaign through an estimated $50m in TV and radio advertising in less than 60 days in 17 swing states. This storm of unremitting negativity has bolstered the faith of his supporters, tested by recent events, and has managed to maintain the contest at a draw.
The attacks against Kerry are a bodyguard of lies to protect the original ones who are the praetorian guard of Bush's presidency.
· Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and Washington bureau chief of Salon.com