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?

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

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

Last edited by sponger on Feb-01-2006 at 03:37

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.

Last edited by sponger on Feb-01-2006 at 06:46

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.

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.

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

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!