Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

It turns out that Bush supporters, in the aggregate, are spectacularly misinformed:

• – 75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.
  
  – 72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.
  
  – 72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.
  
  – 69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  
  – 61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war.
  
  – 60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.
  
  – 57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected.
  
  – 56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.
  
  – 55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.

These numbers are drawn from a report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes. From the report:

• It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values (such as the proper role of the government) or strategies (such as how best to defend US interests). As we have seen, the current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality....
  
  So why do Bush supporters show such a resistance to accepting dissonant information? While it is normal for people to show some resistance, the magnitude of the denial goes beyond the ordinary. Bush supporters have succeeded in suppressing awareness of the findings of a whole series of high- profile reports about prewar Iraq that have been blazoned across the headlines of newspapers and prompted extensive, high-profile and agonizing reflection. The fact that a large portion of Americans say they are unaware that the original reasons that the US took military action--and for which Americans continue to die on a daily basis--are not turning out to be valid, are probably not due to a simple failure to pay attention to the news.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
just so we're clear, these personal attacks may serve you well on the FB, but thet have no place here. We come here for civil discourse, not undeserved slurs.

Who are you and what have you done with Hank?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It turns out that Bush supporters, in the aggregate, are spectacularly misinformed:

• – 75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.
  
  – 72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.
  
  – 72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.
  
  – 69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  
  – 61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war.
  
  – 60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.
  
  – 57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected.
  
  – 56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.
  
  – 55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.

Wow. Talk about a resistance to facts and information. Holy crap.

In other news, some dudes at the University of Arizona threw pies at Ann Coulter during an appearance she was making there.

For her sake, I hope she ate some! (I think they were custard.)

She also recently wrote a column referring to Jews as "oily Jews" (I would provide a link, but for some reason, the results I got from google gave me a "YOU PERV!" message when I tried to click through.

If you'd like to read her venom, though -- just search "Ann Coulter Oily Jews" -- you'll find what you're looking for!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by dtb
Wow. Talk about a resistance to facts and information. Holy crap.

In other news, some dudes at the University of Arizona threw pies at Ann Coulter during an appearance she was making there.

For her sake, I hope she ate some! (I think they were custard.)

She also recently wrote a column referring to Jews as "oily Jews" (I would provide a link, but for some reason, the results I got from google gave me a "YOU PERV!" message when I tried to click through.

If you'd like to read her venom, though -- just search "Ann Coulter Oily Jews" -- you'll find what you're looking for!

Did she say well-oiled Jewesses or oily Jews?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Did she say well-oiled Jewesses or oily Jews?

There's no consensus position, but the Democrats are pretty sure the real reason we went to Iraq was one of the following:

Books
Strongly Recommended!
Christian Jihad: Two Former Muslims Look at the Crusades...

Hillary's Secret War, Richard Poe

So Many Enemies, So Little Time, Elinor Burkett

By Ann Coulter
Treason: Hardcover | Audio
Slander: Paperback | Hardcover | Audio | Large Print
High Crimes: Paperback

Sponsors
Single Conservatives
Find a single conservative free!
Annoy a Liberal
Peace Through Superior Firepower shirts
Bank on Iraq
Their money can't stay this low forever.

Start Advertising Now
.


E-Mail List




Bush family's connections to the Saudis,
Halliburton,
the Carlyle Group,
something about the Texas Rangers needing more left-handed pitching,
the neoconservatives,
the Straussians,
oil,
the Jews,
oily Jews.

http://www.anncoulter.org/

(banner ads left in in case there are lonely conservatives out there)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by dtb

She also recently wrote a column referring to Jews as "oily Jews" (I would provide a link, but for some reason, the results I got from google gave me a "YOU PERV!" message when I tried to click through.

If you'd like to read her venom, though -- just search "Ann Coulter Oily Jews" -- you'll find what you're looking for!

Or you could go to anncoulter.org and read it for yourself.

etc: com to org

[dtb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or you could go to anncoulter.org and read it for yourself.

etc: com to org

She's a peach -- that gal!



Here are some Bush family members telling you why they like their candidate!!

And I'm sure Bush is glad to have the ringing endoresment of that guy whose name he can't really pronounce. It should be noted that if people whose names Bush can't pronounce were Bush supporters, it would be Bush in a landslide.

[SlaveNoMore]

And a second. And a third....

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by dtb
She's a peach -- that gal!

The correct statement is "She's a peach -- your girl"

[dtb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The correct statement is "She's a peach -- your girl"

There's a correct way to say that? (I sense a whiffffff...)

Duly noted.

[Hank Chinaski]

October 22, 2004

His Excellency Jacques Chirac
President
Republic of France
Palais de l'Elysée
55 rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré
75008 Paris

Dear Mr. President:

The United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce is conducting an investigation into the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program ("the Program"). As you are aware, this Program was designed to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, it appears that the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein exploited the Program and siphoned off billions of dollars for various illicit purchases, including weapons and luxury items. These abuses were largely facilitated by a lack of transparency which prevented the Program from benefiting the oppressed without enriching the oppressor. Given the magnitude of the alleged abuses under the Program, and the resulting harm to the Iraqi people, I am certain that your government is also actively investigating these issues. It is my profound hope that you will consider sharing with this Committee any relevant information that you have obtained to date.

On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency issued a Comprehensive Report prepared by Charles A. Duelfer, a Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence ("the Report"). One of the Report's most troubling findings is that Saddam's regime engaged in a concerted effort to undermine sanctions by awarding lucrative oil and goods contracts to companies and politicians of several Security Council members, including France. Indeed, the Report notes that "Saddam recognized the important role that France played on the international stage, and in particular in the UNSC [United Nations Security Council]."

The Report cites compelling documentary and testimonial evidence suggesting that France's policies toward the Program, and Iraq in general, may have been motivated by economic self-interest. According to documents obtained by Mr. Duelfer's team from Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization, several French politicians received allocations of Iraqi oil, including Charles Pasqua, France's former Interior Minister, and Jean-Bernard Mérimée, the former French ambassador to the United Nations. Moreover, Iraq's former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz claimed to have personally awarded several French individuals substantial oil allotments, adding that these individuals "understood that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift UN sanctions, or through opposition to American initiatives within the Security Council." Finally, recovered Iraqi Intelligence Service ("IIS") documents reveal that Saddam's regime "targeted a number of French individuals that the Iraqi's [sic] thought had close relations to French President Chirac, including, according to the Iraqi assessment, the official spokesperson of President Chirac's re-election campaign, two reported 'counselors' of President Chirac, and two well-known French businessmen." These IIS documents also describe a May 2002 meeting between a representative of Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a French parliamentarian, during which, "The French politician assured the Iraqi that France would use its veto in the UNSC against any American decision to attack Iraq, according to the IIS memo."

This Committee also has concerns that French companies may have been selling weapons to Iraq during the sanctions period, in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 661. According to the Report, Mr. Duelfer and his team found evidence that as early as 1998 French companies received "offers and contracts from Iraq for conventional weapons systems and [engaged in] negotiations for possible WMD-related mobile laboratories." For instance, recovered documents show that the French company Lura supplied a tank carrier to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in late 1998 or 1999 and that a French expert "arrived in Iraq in September 1999 to provide training and offer technical expertise on the carrier." Moreover, by 1999, "French firms displayed a willingness to supply parts for Iraqi conventional military items, mainly related to aircraft." IIS documents reveal that the Deputy General Manager of SOFEMA, a French company, planned to visit Iraq in January 2000 on behalf of a number of French military companies to "seek possible trading between the two countries" concerning Iraqi air defense capabilities. These efforts continued right up until Operation Iraqi Freedom ("OIF"). The Report notes that in late December 2002 Iraq "initiated efforts to acquire replacement parts for the Roland II Surface to air missile system, valves for Iraq's air defense system, and various other high technology items with military and battlefield applications" from the French Thompson Company and that Mr. Duelfer's team "found evidence of coordination on this procurement up until 23 days before OIF."

These allegations of bribery and illegal weapons sales are extremely serious, and, if true, cast doubt upon the effectiveness and independence of the United Nations. I have no doubt that you are equally concerned about these allegations, and I very much hope that you will assist this Committee in its efforts to shed light on possible abuses of the Program. In this regard, I ask that you make available a representative of your government to discuss these issues at a convenient time and location.

Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. I will have a senior member of my oversight and investigations staff contact the French Embassy in Washington during the next several days to arrange the meeting.

Sincerely,


Joe Barton
Chairman

cc: The Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary
United States Department of State
His Excellency Jean-David Levitte,
Ambassador of France
The Honorable John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
The Honorable Peter Deutsch, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
The Honorable Paul A. Volcker, Chairman
Independent Inquiry Committee into the
United Nations Oil-For-Food Program

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It turns out that Bush supporters, in the aggregate, are spectacularly misinformed:

• – 75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.
  
  – 72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.
  
  – 72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.
  
  – 69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  
  – 61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war.
  
  – 60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.
  
  – 57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected.
  
  – 56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.
  
  – 55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
  
  – 51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.

These numbers are drawn from a report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes. From the report:

• It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values (such as the proper role of the government) or strategies (such as how best to defend US interests). As we have seen, the current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality....
  
  So why do Bush supporters show such a resistance to accepting dissonant information? While it is normal for people to show some resistance, the magnitude of the denial goes beyond the ordinary. Bush supporters have succeeded in suppressing awareness of the findings of a whole series of high- profile reports about prewar Iraq that have been blazoned across the headlines of newspapers and prompted extensive, high-profile and agonizing reflection. The fact that a large portion of Americans say they are unaware that the original reasons that the US took military action--and for which Americans continue to die on a daily basis--are not turning out to be valid, are probably not due to a simple failure to pay attention to the news.

I have argued to hoarseness with many republican friends (I have family who work/volunteer for the party) and they -even the most educated of them - adopt this "fuck the facts" position when you begin hitting them with evidence. They actually pride themselves on not following the standard procedures of debate. They deride challenges on the facts as "lawyer tricks". Its very odd. Its like they know they're wrong, but their cause is somehow "morally" better than the left, so they're justified in taking a holiday from the usual burden of proof required to make a valid point in debate. This is part of the "dumbing down" of the country I spoke of earlier. They fancy their lack of articulate response as some sort of deep earthiness and "true moral centeredness". Its like their trying to rollback society's acceptance of the scientific and socractic methods alltogether. Its an embrace of superstition. Why else would they coo so much about how W "speaks from the heart" and "is a man of beliefs". These people are afraid - society's lurching forward and they're not ready. They want the security of blind faith. And more than anything, they want certainty.

Don't take this as some Chicken Litte screed. This one has a happy ending. These scared backward people inevitably lose in the end. As Ty said yesterday, whether they like it or not, Paris is coming to their doorstep. The savages will be civilized one way or another...

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have argued to hoarseness with many republican friends (I have family who work/volunteer for the party) and they -even the most educated of them - adopt this "fuck the facts" position when you begin hitting them with evidence. They actually pride themselves on not following the standard procedures of debate. They deride challenges on the facts as "lawyer tricks". Its very odd. Its like they know they're wrong, but their cause is somehow "morally" better than the left, so they're justified in taking a holiday from the usual burden of proof required to make a valid point in debate. This is part of the "dumbing down" of the country I spoke of earlier. They fancy their lack of articulate response as some sort of deep earthiness and "true moral centeredness". Its like their trying to rollback society's acceptance of the scientific and socractic methods alltogether. Its an embrace of superstition. Why else would they coo so much about how W "speaks from the heart" and "is a man of beliefs". These people are afraid - society's lurching forward and they're not ready. They want the security of blind faith. And more than anything, they want certainty.

Don't take this as some Chicken Litte screed. This one has a happy ending. These scared backward people inevitably lose in the end. As Ty said yesterday, whether they like it or not, Paris is coming to their doorstep. The savages will be civilized one way or another...

Bullshit. Here's some facts

IIS documents reveal that the Deputy General Manager of SOFEMA, a French company, planned to visit Iraq in January 2000 on behalf of a number of French military companies to "seek possible trading between the two countries" concerning Iraqi air defense capabilities. These efforts continued right up until Operation Iraqi Freedom ("OIF"). The Report notes that in late December 2002 Iraq "initiated efforts to acquire replacement parts for the Roland II Surface to air missile system, valves for Iraq's air defense system, and various other high technology items with military and battlefield applications" from the French Thompson Company and that Mr. Duelfer's team "found evidence of coordination on this procurement up until 23 days before OIF."

Our ally was selling weapons to Iraq to shoot down our planes. John Kerry wants us to be more sensitive to what that ally wants us to do. Ty and his crew will parse, and twist and avoid this rather shocking discovery. We are near end times Sebastian. You must choose.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have argued to hoarseness with many republican friends (I have family who work/volunteer for the party) and they -even the most educated of them - adopt this "fuck the facts" position when you begin hitting them with evidence.

Ah, the nemeses of the reality-based community. It will be a long, drawn out epic battle, and I fear, after all the blood has been shed, no one will be able to declare victory.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
As Ty said yesterday, whether they like it or not, Paris is coming to their doorstep.

Who wouldn't like that?



I'd nail her in a heartbeat.