TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

Blind Ignorance

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.

Despite the media's failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer and that the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror. The problem, thus, lies with the absence of due diligence on the part of the other half of the population.

Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53 percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying, requires the executive to obtain from a secret panel of federal judges a warrant for spying on Americans. The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons. The law permits the president to spy first (for 72 hours) and then come to the court for permission. As the court meets in secret, spying without a warrant is no more effective in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant.

Instead of explaining this basic truth, the media has played along with the Bush administration and formulated the question as a trade-off between civil liberties and protection from terrorists. This formulation is false and nonsensical. Why does the media enable the Bush administration to escape accountability for illegal behavior by putting false and misleading choices before the people?

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has equally striking anomalies. Only 43 percent said they approved of Bush's performance as president. But a majority believe Bush's policies have made the US more secure.

It is extraordinary that anyone would think Americans are safer as a result of Bush invading two Muslim countries and constantly threatening two more with military attack. The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in Muslim sentiment away from the US. Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, a large majority of Muslims had a favorable opinion of America. Now only about 5 percent do.

A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the American public that the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit and to train terrorists for al Qaeda, which has grown many times its former size. Moreover, the US military has concluded that al Qaeda has succeeded in having its members elected to the new Iraqi government.

We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan. In the recent Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats. In Pakistan elements friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government. In Iraq, Bush's invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with Iran.

And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy. Bush has succeeded in displacing secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with Islamic extremists. It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes Americans feel safer!

What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?

Americans share this disability with the Bush administration.

According to news reports, the Bush administration is stunned by the election victory of the radical Islamist Hamas Party, which swept the US-financed Fatah Party from office. Why is the Bush administration astonished?

The Bush administration is astonished because it stupidly believes that hundreds of millions of Muslims should be grateful that the US has interfered in their internal affairs for 60 years, setting up colonies and puppet rulers to suppress their aspirations and to achieve, instead, purposes of the US government.

Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty year war that will bankrupt the United States.

The total lack of rationality and competence in the White House and the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism.

America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: [email protected]

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01292006.html

Dumber than Bush? That's pretty low. Is it even possible?

I can't wait to hear all the crap Bush has to say to his beloved nation tonight. "Blah blah blah to protect America" ... arduous clapping. "Blah blah blah nation is safer" ... standing ovation ... "Blah blah democracy is working." And of course the obligatory praise to the soldiers fighting overseas followed by a long session of clapping.

It's such a shame Georgie is getting away with impeachable offenses. I was looking forward to some good goverment entertainment. But then again, having him in office is pure humor. I couldn't live without him.

I didn't need a poll to tell me that most Americans are dumber than Bush

Any bets on how many times the phrase "post 9/11 world" with be used to strike fear in the hearts of Americans tonight?

The way decisions are thought and out right planned, then it shouldn't at all be a suprise.

Of course the article is from some anti-Bush website, big suprise. oh and the poll is not very smart in my opinion either, but then again its from the LA/NY times.

If you are asked "Do you have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush?" people will go, oh my gosh, yes im concerned about loosing my civil liberties because all they have heard about was how the govt is spying on everyone (which is bs).

Then you're asked "Do you approve of spying without obtaining court warrants in order to reduce the threat of terrorism." "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism" is the main part, so of course people will say "why yes i do approve if it reduces the threat of terrorism"!!!!
Im assuming thats how the questions were asked given the way the results were stated. Bad poll if you ask me! And is there an article in the times talking about these results?? Because im not interested in this schmucks interpretation of it.

"And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy"
umm actually palestinians voted for hamas because of the corruption of the fatah party, more of a vote against that party than for hamas, so i don't see how the Bush adm. is responsible for Hamas winning. Nonsense!

Something on Paul ROberts from wikipedia:
"In an August 15, 2005 article, he states "Bush...dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia" and "the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon"
todays news:
U.N.: Iran Holds Black Market Papers to Build Atomic Bomb
hmmm i wonder what this dipshit has to say now

quote:

Originally posted by sponger Of course the article is from some anti-Bush website, big suprise.

Actually, while the site is in fact left-wing - they were also (and still are) critical of Bill Clinton when he was the pres.

It's more like an anti-asshole website as they seem to consider anyone who perpetrates cowardly acts of human injustice as fair game.

It's nice to actually be able to read some dissenting opinions, especially when they are expressed with relative intelligence. It's a shame, though, that the mainstream media is so thoroughly controlled - because if it wasn't you would get to hear some dissenting viewpoints from there as well.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/blood.html

And hey, at least they had enough foresight to be able to see what was about to happen just around the corner...

quote:

The explosions of Tuesday were not an hour old before terror pundits like Anthony Cordesman, Wesley Clark, Robert Gates and Lawrence Eagleburger were saying that these attacks had been possible "because America is a democracy" adding that now some democratic perquisites might have to be abandoned? What might this mean? Increased domestic snooping by US law enforcement and intelligence agencies; ethnic profiling; another drive for a national ID card system. http://www.counterpunch.org/flyingbombs.html

ummm, well im glad you responded to the first sentence of my post and ignored the rest.
its not just left-wing, its pretty far out there. im guessing they were critical of Clinton for not being liberal enough?

and that Mosqueda article, wow, now thats extreme.
"I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that "war" (slaughter)"
i didnt even have to read further.
"According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war"
where the hell did mosqueda get the figure of 200,000?? That war had the support of most of the world and the US was not alone in acting. So basically i assume the rest of the article is also BS!

If you want intelligent dissenting opinions i think youre better off listening to the DNC then some loony extremist websites. i dont know about you but when i watch tv news programs there are almost always both views expressed. dont tell me youve never heard anyone express their dissenting view of the Bush administration on tv.

Anyway, thats off the original topic, id rather you respond to my first post.

quote:

Originally posted by sponger ummm, well im glad you responded to the first sentence of my post and ignored the rest.

Well, what do you want me to respond to - your assumptions regarding the polls or your opinion that the government isn't spying on everyone?

quote:

its not just left-wing, its pretty far out there. im guessing they were critical of Clinton for not being liberal enough?

It's really only left-wing if you're basing it on a narrowly defined political spectrum, which in consideration of our country's Republican/Democrat duopoly is normal - so I won't hold that against you. Anyway, it's not like it's a Marxist or even a neo-con Trotskyist newsletter or anything leaning THAT FAR to the left.


From Wikipedia:

Running six to eight pages in length, the Counterpunch newsletter publishes primarily commentaries of Cockburn and St Clair with regular contributions by others. It is noted for its highly critical coverage of both Democratic and Republican politicians and its extensive reporting of environmental and trade union issues. Counterpunch carries on the tradition of muckraking journalism of earlier investigative journalists such as I.F. Stone and George Seldes.

The Gulf War: how many Iraqis died? (Persian Gulf War)

Foreign Policy; 3/22/1993; Heidenrich, John G.

On February 27, 1991, as hostilities in Operation Desert Storm were about to cease, General Norman Schwarzkopf was repeatedly asked at a press conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to estimate the number of Iraqis killed. This was his response: "There were a very, very large number of dead in [the forward] units--a very, very large number of dead... When we went into the units ourselves, we found them in the trench lines." When prodded for an exact toll, he responded:

I don't think there has ever been, ever in the history of warfare, been a successful count of the dead.... That's because it is necessary to lay those people to rest [on the battlefield]...so I would probably say that no, there will never be an exact count... The people who will know best, unfortunately, are the families that won't see their loved ones come home.

Those few remarks represent the U.S. Central Command's (CENTCOM) most definitive position on the issue of Iraqi casualties. Even today, some two years later, the U.S. government still refuses to provide an official estimate of the number of Iraqi casualties. Whenever an unofficial estimate has slipped out, the Pentagon has quickly disavowed it with a restatement of its blanket policy.

What lies behind such extraordinary reluctance? Quite simply, fear. Senior officials fear that any estimate they release will provide ammunition to Pentagon critics. A high estimate could bring charges of barbarism. A low estimate might bring accusations of a coverup. And any estimate could evoke unwanted (and unfair) parallels between Desert Storm and the body count mentality of Vietnam. Senior officials, then, would rather not say anything at all.

Yet the damage has already been done, fueled by persistent rumors of massive Iraqi losses. Those rumors, ironically, were encouraged by Schwarzkopf's briefing. Delivered before the hostilities had completely ceased, much of it was based on initial field reports--the least reliable of all wartime information. When the general spoke of a "very, very large number" of Iraqi dead, he merely related what everyone already believed. It is now clear, however, that those initial reports were highly misleading.

The confusion has worsened over time. CENTCOM's refusal to make an estimate did not preclude others from trying. The most famous came from the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in May of 1991. The DIA had hoped to avoid the subject, but, compelled by an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act, it eventually provided this reluctant answer1)

Upon review, it has been determined that little information is available which would enable this Agency to make an accurate assessment of Iraqi military casualties. An analysis of very limited information leads DIA to tentatively state the following ([with an] error factor of 50 per cent or higher):

Killed in action: Approx. 100,000 Wounded in action: Approx. 300,000 Deserters: Approx. 150,000

The error factor of 50 per cent is quite revealing. The DIA obviously wanted to play down the reliability of its figures. The Defense Department later disavowed them altogether.

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc...id=1G1:13533436

Where are all these percentages coming from? Five percent this 95 percent that. Looks like they're pulling them out of thin air. Don't trust source.

�There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics�

Although not exectly a statistic, because the word "poll" has been used, it's close enough.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Where are all these percentages coming from? Five percent this 95 percent that. Looks like they're pulling them out of thin air.

Well, if you guys used your noggins you'd understand that instead of saying 95 percent, he could have easily said 'grand majority' and you probably wouldn't be questioning his statements so vociferously.

He lists his email address at the bottom of the article, so maybe you could email him and personally ask him your question. Or is that too difficult of a task for you minions to do?

quote:

Don't trust source.

But you guys blindly trust the government even though it's been lying to you your whole lives? Interesting.
I wonder why that could be?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Well, what do you want me to respond to - your assumptions regarding the polls or your opinion that the government isn't spying on everyone?

Both, since that article on that poll is what your post was about.

quote:

Again from Wikipedia, what you conveniently omitted: Independent analysts generally agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates. In the immediate aftermath of the war, these estimates ranged as high as 100,000 Iraqi troops killed and 300,000 wounded. According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports.

Yes i omitted it for good reason : "analysts generally agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates". And that estimate was "as high as 100,000" so i still don't see where he got 200,000.
here is another source: While estimates during the war had ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 Iraqis killed, Western military experts now agree that Iraq sustained between 20,000 and 35,000 casualties.
Microsoft� Encarta� Reference Library 2002.

But yet Mosqueda accuses the US of "slaughtering" 200,000 iraqis. Or maybe he got confused and meant to say that Saddam slaughtered 200,000 iraqis after the war, but that number would be way too low.

quote:

What they did fail to mention, however, is that the official death toll has been highly contested by more than just a few academics.

of course the official death toll is contested, but not whether 20,000 iraqis were killed or 200,000!
"The Defense Department later disavowed them altogether"

You just made my point with that article, that 200,000 is just plain wrong.
Oh and thanx for that link to that anti-war website, im sorry but those kind of websites have just about as much credibility as a late night infomercial. (heard that line on some show)

"While 250,000 Iraqis were killed outright by the U.S."
Did you bother looking at the source of that statement??
New York Newsday_, August 10, 1991. Thats the intitial post war estimate, which was obviously way too high.

quote:

Well, unlike the majority of our country's uninformed, polarized population, I don't stereotype websites as "loony" when they venture beyond the bounds of the mainstream media's White House propagandized talking points. I look at all of the information, take note of it and then let my own due diligence run it's course.

they are loony not because they criticise this admin. but because of the crap they say. You complain about WH propaganda, but do you really think youre going to get unbiased info. about the iraq war from an anti war website?? Not likely!

quote:

Originally posted by sponger Both, since that article on that poll is what your post was about.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

Americans divided over eavesdropping: poll

Fri Jan 27

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of Americans approve of the White House's domestic eavesdropping program to fight terrorism, but nearly two-thirds worry that Americans' civil liberties could be threatened by U.S. antiterrorism programs, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll.

The poll, published in Friday's New York Times, found Americans were more accepting of the surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them.

Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said they approved of President George W. Bush's decision to authorize eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism," The Times reported.

When pollsters asked about the surveillance program and did not mention terrorism, 46 percent of respondents approved of the program and 50 percent said they disapproved, the newspaper said.

The National Security Agency program, exposed last month by The New York Times, was authorized by Bush to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of U.S. citizens without first obtaining warrants as a means of aiding in the hunt for al Qaeda suspects in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

Critics say the program violates the U.S. Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without the approval of a special secret court.

Sixty-four percent of Americans surveyed said they were very or somewhat concerned about losing civil liberties as a result of antiterrorism measures put in place since the September 11 attacks, according to The Times.

Seventy percent of respondents told pollsters they would not support government surveillance of the communications of "ordinary Americans," the paper reported. But 68 percent said they would be willing to support such monitoring of "Americans the government is suspicious of."

The White House has been conducting a public campaign to reassure Americans this is a limited program and the government is not engaged in a mass spying operation.

On Thursday, Bush insisted his authorization of the spying program was legal. He also said a measure passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks gave him the authority to use whatever force was necessary in his declared war on terrorism.

The Times/CBS poll surveyed 1,229 adults by phone from Friday to Wednesday. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060127...pping_poll_dc_2

got any NEW news?

Polls Show Many Americans are Stupider Than Bush

fixed.

There's a show on the ABC here called CNNNN. It is a comedy spoof of CNN. They sent a 'reporter' to the America and asked people on the street to name a country that started with the letter U.
No-one had an answer... No-one said United States.

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e There's a show on the ABC here called CNNNN. It is a comedy spoof of CNN. They sent a 'reporter' to the America and asked people on the street to name a country that started with the letter U. No-one had an answer... No-one said United States.

I saw this online about 6 months ago. It was very funny. These had to find other obvious plaxces that been in the news and they kept picking Australia. Can you find a link to this clip?

Hi. I'm Trancer X. I make little, to NO sense.

I believe in GRAND conspiracies orchestrated by Bush, the big "Dumby". It's ironic that on the one hand I think Bush is too dumb to run a hot dog stand, yet on the other, I think he is capable of the most INCREDIBLE and outrageous conspiracies ever invented in my head.

I can't make up my mind; Is Bush an Idiot? Or a Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? ............. I'm going insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Hi. I'm Trancer X. I make little, to NO sense. I believe in GRAND conspiracies orchestrated by Bush, the big "Dumby". It's ironic that on the one hand I think Bush is too dumb to run a hot dog stand, yet on the other, I think he is capable of the most INCREDIBLE and outrageous conspiracies ever invented in my head. I can't make up my mind; Is Bush an Idiot? Or a Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? Idiot? Genius? ............. I'm going insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey donny, stop banging your head against the wall, put down your drool cup and show me where I said that Dubya was orchestrating anything (other than maybe another monthly vacation to his Crawford Ranch.)

^^^9-11...your favorite conspiracy topic. Happened under GW's watch...you have said over and over how you think the whole thing is a BIG conspiracy. So tell me; How does an IDIOT like Bush manage to pull off this outrageous conspiracy you have him at the head of? I mean, which is it? One minute he's an incideous and brilliant subversive Dictator, and the next, the guy couldn't flip a burger to save his life?

DOH! Sorry! Did I just throw your sordid "Logic" in to complete disaray!?!? Are you completely and suddenly self-aware of how backwards your thinking is?!?!? What will you do NOW!?!?!?!?

CHOKE! CHOKE! CHOKE!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^9-11...your favorite conspiracy topic. Happened under GW's watch...you have said over and over how you think the whole thing is a BIG conspiracy. So tell me; How does an IDIOT like Bush manage to pull off this outrageous conspiracy you have him at the head of? I mean, which is it? One minute he's an incideous and brilliant subversive Dictator, and the next, the guy couldn't flip a burger to save his life? DOH! Sorry! Did I just throw your sordid "Logic" in to complete disaray!?!? Are you completely and suddenly self-aware of how backwards your thinking is?!?!? What will you do NOW!?!?!?!? CHOKE! CHOKE! CHOKE!

You make me feel like I'm fighting with my little brother again... back when he was still like six years old.

Again, where did I say anything about Bush pulling off ANYTHING? Of course I think he's stupid, but I do have enough faith in the guy to be able to read from a script. I mean, he's done a good enough job of it for most of his presidency and he did it well enough so that he was able to fool half of the voting population into re-electing him, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Again, where did I say anything about Bush pulling off ANYTHING?

OMG, you're so full of it. You and your endless conspiracy theories about 9-11 and how it's all a big conspiracy on the part of the U.S. government, a government led by Bush, etc., etc...

There's a reason you're on the Internet; NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY!! That's why..........

Tancer; You're as boring as you are predictable.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So tell me; How does an IDIOT like Bush manage to pull off this outrageous conspiracy you have him at the head of? I mean, which is it? One minute he's an incideous and brilliant subversive Dictator, and the next, the guy couldn't flip a burger to save his life?

You honestly think that everything starts and stops with Bush? You do realize he has a huge staff which usually do all the work for him, he's just the person in the spotlight. Again, ignorance.


You know what's bogoling too. The American people always believe what the government throws at them. When people are assasinated, it's always by a lone-gunman, never by the government. When people are assassinated in other countries, the people know that the government did it. Americans are just ignorant enough to believe that the US government never has anything to do with them.

^^^Another conspiracy theory genius.

You know why America is number one in the world? Because our country isn't clogged full of half-wits. You don't get to be number one by being gullible and well, just plain stupid!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.