As I reported earlier this month (Link), there is just something wrong with the general electorate. Polls were showing that the more a person was educated, the more likely they were to support Kerry, and the less educated were more likely to support Bush. This theory has been now reconfirmed by the University of Maryland (Link to Story) that Bushies are not as educated as Kerry supporters. I will re-emphasize that I am not calling Bushies "stupid," just "uneducated" and "uninformed."
the PIPA study found "A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight terrorism."
"On other international issues, the survey found that around 70 percent of Bush supporters responding believe that the president supports participation in the land mine treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and a narrower majority believes he supports the International Criminal Court and Kyoto Accords. In fact, Bush opposes all four treaties."
None of this is true... NONE! Not one single report coming out of any government agency, not one story coming out of any respected news source supports any of these positions.
If you are a Bushie... PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE read, learn, understand. Pick up a paper and educate yourself. I live in NY now. I have to ride the subway to work every day. You guys are playing with my life...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Perhaps there is the belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD before the invasion because..well...he did. Remember the attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988? Let's see...what did Mr. Hussein use again? Oh yes, Mustard Gas. I suppose that you are under the assumption that while the United nations stalled the US from invading Iraq that no weapons were shipped to Syria? I mean, it isn't like Saddam had a hisotry of illegal activity. And I guess you are ruling out the possiblity that as soon as Saddam realized that he was in the crosshairs of the US that he didn't bury any weapons in the Iraq desert, which covers itself over with fresh sand daily? Uninformed? Think again.
He had none. He may have wanted them, but he had none. We could have left the inspectors in there and confirmed this, but no, Bush rushed to war. The Nazi's had WMDs that they used in WWII. Should we be invading them also? They have used them in the past...
Perhaps there is the belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD before the invasion because..well...he did. Remember the attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988? Let's see...what did Mr. Hussein use again? Oh yes, Mustard Gas. I suppose that you are under the assumption that while the United nations stalled the US from invading Iraq that no weapons were shipped to Syria? I mean, it isn't like Saddam had a hisotry of illegal activity. And I guess you are ruling out the possiblity that as soon as Saddam realized that he was in the crosshairs of the US that he didn't bury any weapons in the Iraq desert, which covers itself over with fresh sand daily? Uninformed? Think again.
At 7:21 PM, Dingo said...
He had none. He may have wanted them, but he had none. We could have left the inspectors in there and confirmed this, but no, Bush rushed to war. The Nazi's had WMDs that they used in WWII. Should we be invading them also? They have used them in the past...
You obviously had a lot of faith in Mr. Hussein. After 12 years of not complying with UN resolutions, you expected diplomacy to work? Saddam wanted the world to believe that he was capable of employing WMD. How else wouldhe continue to bully his neighboring countries? Your idea that the weapons inspectors could have told us that he had none would be great....until Saddam kicked them out. You and all your peacenik friends who complain that Bush didn't even try diplomacy forget about the 12 years that the United States let the UN handle things diplomatically in Iraq. Only when it became clear that Saddam was simply exploiting the oil-for-food program and using the diplomatic process to further his agenda was military force used.
First, we kicked the inspectors out, not Saddam.
Second, I did not have faith in Saddam, but I had faith in the process (which was proven to be correct). Saddam did not posses WMDs. So, he was subverting the oil for food program. How did that make us less safe? He still didn't have WMDs and his programs were completely mothballed (may I remind you that his nuclear program was buried in back yard under a rose bush for 12 years - I don't consider that imminent). If you think that is the only corruption in the world, take a visit to Louisiana sometime.
Third, I am not a peacenik or a pacifist, I am a strategist. I have studied military conflict and diplomatic agenda my entire life. From strategic air power by ex-Air Force academy professors, to nuclear deterrence by former Reagan White House staffers. Bush is fighting a dumb war. Why is it that Repubs think force alone can win wars and the peace. I recommend starting out with the Peloponnesian wars.
Fourth, I do not hold the position that Saddam should never have been confronted, but it was done at the wrong time. We were at war with terrorist, but Bush forgot about that and went after Saddam instead. You can listen to Cheney, and Limbaugh as much as you want, but it will never make a operational connection between Saddam and al Queda true. Instead of achieving our true objectives in Afghanistan, it is now mainly in the hands of warlords and Taliban, poppy production is the largest in decades and Bin Laden is still on the loose. Assuming Karzai wins, he will still only be the mayor of Kabul instead of the president of Afghanistan. So, not only does the threat in Afghanistan persist, we are now funding terrorists with illicit drug money of or our own streets. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan first. Then, we could asses other risks accordingly. Iran, North Korea, Iraq. Bush's priorities are completely out of whack.
In the end, Bush has made us less safe...
Post a Comment