Voting Without the Facts

The New York Times ^ | November 8, 2004 | BOB HERBERT

[Alberta's Child]

Dear Mr. Herbert:

I will gladly join in your crusade to ensure that our leaders are elected only by people who understand the issues at stake.

I should caution you, however, that this is not a road you should wish to travel. Do you really believe that the average voter in urban districts of New York, Washington, Chicago, etc. has a clearer understanding of all these issues than the typical "Red State" voter?

Sincerely,

Alberta's Child

[Smokin' Joe]

When the revealing of fact as such by the CIA would compromise HUMINT sources, there is a really good chance the information will not be vetted by the agency. HUMINT resources are hard to develop and take time to get into the position to gather really useful data. Why throw that away? Isn't it sufficient that numerous other sources tied them together, and that Saddam had not only a track record for using WMD, but was generally accepted to be working on further WMD capability, even by the Clinton administration, well prior to 9/11?

If the Mass graves of the Balkans were sufficient to cause American involvement under the Clinton Administration, why aren't the mass graves of Iraq sufficient under the Bush administration? Why not the "ethnic cleansing" of Kurdish villages?

Besides, any twit with a map can see what position Iran is in now, sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iraq.

IMHO, there are a number of reasons why Iraq is/was the right place to be.

[Flightdeck]

You want ignorance? How about a New York Times columnist who doesn't know that several chemical weapons WERE found in Iraq, and there IS a connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda, and a substantial majority of the only countries that MATTER did support the war. So there.

[Moose Dung]

"with all due respect to those on the thread -- as an old-fashioned, Buchanan conservative, I have to object to our side not dealing with these facts. The fact is, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."

OK, lets deal with these facts. The most important aspect of these facts is context, and the context is determined by the opinion holder NOT the pollster.

The supposed facts from the UofM PIPA Survey:
1) 70% believe Clear Evidence Was Established of Saddam's Link to Al Queda.

In other words, this 70% did and still does believe that the evidence we've gotten supports this assertion. The crux of the matter is the definition of "clear evidence," for example: 3 decades of terrorist-like behaviour; 10 year shell game with UN weapons inspectors; declarative statements of support for terrorist positions; and, loads of real live breathing terrorists inside Iraq. Now, you may not consider this "evidence" but that does not make your position either true or compelling.

2) 33% believe WMDs were found.
Again, this all depends upon ones definition of WMD. Frankly, the factual evidence strongly supports the proposition that Saddam and the Iraqi state under Saddam was a WMD. Using the arguments from #1 above, we had clear and compelling evidence of Iraqi WMDs before we put our first boots in the sand.

3) 33% believe majority of world opinion supported Iraq invasion.
If you use the 1 MAN, 1 VOTE (not 1 country, 1 vote) standard we did and do still believe that world support is behind the Iraq war. Now corrupt French, Russian and Chinese offials that had their hands deep in Saddam's pockets may be concerned about the US going into Iraq, but frankly I don't believe they represent the majority opinion within their own countries. Hell, if you only read the New York Times, you would believe that most American's are against the war. And guess what, you would be dead wrong.

So we get back to the issue of context. If you use the John Kerry/United Nations context, then the American public comprises a raging mob of stupid louts. If you use the "reasonable man" standard of American juris prudence you find quite the opposite.

Stop giving credence to the thoroughly discredited left. It doesn't advance the discussion one iota.

dung.

[iheartusa]

i love u guys.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Well, speaking on Kosovo, it demonstrates an underlying hypocrisy given that the Clinton/Gore Administration claimed there were 100,000 ethnic Albanians dead in mass graves while there were only 3,000 dead found and we don’t know how they died or if they were part of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). We do know the KLA trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan that were run by Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and I’ve always referred to the group as a faction of al-Qaeda. The Clinton/Gore Administration allied us with the KLA.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

On WMDs in Iraq, see post 35.

[iheartusa]

(BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)

Don't worry, he will.

[D1X1E]

"I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome..."

Here we go again. They call me ignorant and yet expect to gain my vote. Same song, different day.

[Little Ray]

... nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda.

They have. There is no evidence linking Iraq with 9/11, but there is clear evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda.

A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

They did. They found loaded gas shells. They also found WMD programs "on hold."

And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

No, most Americans don't give a d@mn what world opinion suports or doesn't support.

[Richard Kimball]

with all due respect to those on the thread -- as an old-fashioned, Buchanan conservative, I have to object to our side not dealing with these facts.

Oh, yeah. Al Queda was in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mexico, Detroit and Miami, but it had no ties with Saddam. Yeah, buddy. You betcha. Satellite photos show mass movements of tractor-trailers prior to the US invasion. Saddam was paying off France to avoid future sanctions. Floor plans of United States high schools were found on Iraqi computers captured by the US military. Can you say Chechnya? Can you say "extremists bayoneting children?". Can you look at a mideast map and see that Iran, which is attempting to build nuclear weapons, is now cut off on both sides? Would you rather have John Kerry send Jimmy Carter to negotiate the same deal with the Iranians that he made with the North Koreans?

We've dealt with the fact that the NY and LATimes considers us stupid because we don't believe their talking points. We just don't bother to do a WWF smackdown on them every time we read it, because facts don't matter to them. They'll continue lying because they think some of us rubes will buy it. Some did, but not enough to elect the dishonorably discharged traitor and the flim-flam dead baby channeling lawyer.

[Coldwater Creek]

Let's take a poll and see how many Republicans have advanced degrees as opposed to the ignorant masses.

[iheartusa]

We believe that the majority of our founders were men of true faith and not just simply "diests".

What is a diests?

[talleyman]

How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold?

I don't know - maybe by staging a goose hunt?

[iheartusa]

If people don't think all these terrorists are buddies, including Sodamn Insane, they are deluded. I don't care if Sodamn Insane is a secularist, that doesn't mean he wouldn't team up with some islamofacists to mess with a common enemy. That's just common freaking sense, isn't it.
Oh, I forgot. I'm conservative. I don't have any sense.

[clintonh8r]

My thought exactly!

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

There is evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, see Post 33