Ignorance a threat to nation's security

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by trader556, Jun 22, 2003.

  1. THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

    Thursday, June 19, 2003

    President Bush continues to enjoy wide public support in national polls. Much of that support is based on his performance as commander in chief and the view that the Iraq war was both justified and successful.

    Another poll, however, raises the question of just how informed that favorable opinion is.

    There can be a wide gap between public opinion and public knowledge, according to the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

    The program's national poll, conducted in the middle of May, showed 34 percent of those surveyed believed that -- contrary to fact -- the United States has already found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy may be at work in this startling bit of public delusion. This belief runs highest among those who approved of the decision to go to war. Overall, 60 percent remembered "the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" as the U.S. government's main reason for attacking Iraq.

    Also, more than one in five surveyed believed that Iraq used chemical or biological weapons during the war.

    In a nation whose very governance is founded on the notion of an informed electorate, such widespread public ignorance of demonstrable facts poses a threat to national security greater than that of any terrorist.


    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/127225_iraqpolled.html
     
  2. There have been scattered reports of chemical weapons and labs being discovered. I distinctly remember footage of dozens of drums that contained unspecified chemicals. I'm not sure how accurate it is to say we haven't discovered any WMD. These woefully uninformed voters might either be correct or at least have a rational basis for their belief.

    I think the more dangerous ignorance is on economic matters. Many voters actually believed the "worst economy in 50 years" lie that was the basis of Clinton's 1992 campaign.
     
  3. WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

    Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.

    The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

    excerpts from:
    The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html


    Folks! this whole thing starts to make more and more sense....
    :mad: :mad: not a pretty picture the closer you get to the truth.

    Hmmm, maybe this belongs to the psychology forum?:)