Maybe this will help the 75% of Bush supporters who continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda get a clue...

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Releases Report on Pre-War Intelligence.

For one, report demonstrates that the Administration created a new intelligence office outside of the Intelligence Community to generate reports that produced the 'evidence' that support their case for war.

Some choice quotes from just the first few pages:

"Although Administration officials cited classified intelligence in support of their statements about the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, their statemetns did not accurately reflect the intelligence assessment provided in the classified reports to the Executive Brance and Congress by the Intelligence Community. Administration officials where apparently using intelligence analyses that orignated outside of the IC. Those intelligence analyses claiming a close relationship where produced by the office of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Duglas Feith, and presented to high level Administration officials. Vice President Cheney specifically stated that the Feith analysis was the "best source of information."

The Administration's pattern of utilizing the stronger, less supportable analysis regarding the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was not limited to building its case before the Iraq war.

...

The non-IC or "alternative" intelligence analysis conducted by the DOD neatly fit the Administration's desire to build a strong case for an invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Saddam regime, particularly given the fact that the usual source of intelligence analysis, the IC, was skeptical about the existence of a close or cooperative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

There is ample evidence that the Bush Administration had a predisposition to overthrow Saddam Hussein before the 9/11 attacks.

With that kind of crap going on it's no wonder people are confused.

Woops, should have previewed.

Italics should have continued til after "There is ample..." since that is all from the report.

Damn, I didn't realize there were so many Texas A&M Aggies alums out there. It's a cult.

They're pod people.

Seriously, it doesn't matter how they got that way if the end result is the same.

The PIPA study confirms what we already know. This cult believes a manufactured reality. The trolls that occasionally post their troubled views on this site are proof positive of this phenomenon. The republic and the middleclass are at risk. We can't take this sitting down. After dealing with Sinclair, Fox News should be next. Fox is providing most of the propaganda, deception, censorship, false pretense and brainwashing. We should also vigorously support reestablishing the
Fairness Doctrine. Eliminating the "Fairness Doctrine" allowed Ronald Reagan to accelerate the process of “manufacturing reality”. The linked clip ,“Watch: Who runs FOX News Channel?”,
describes the playbook Fox News uses to propagate deceptions, distortions and censor reality. The fight has just begun.

What is really behind the bush people is a political idea that some how china is a friend of the USA, The fact is back in 1974 old Bush got a great job from old Nixon working as Ambassador and his son G.W.Bush came to china and met Jiang zemin and talked to Rong Yiren and did a good nimber of Trade Deals with both, the fact is cliton and old boy bush and G.W.Bush are all doing business with the Red Chinese, its been policy for a long time, but most people will not look the thing in its face and ask questions of why? the bush family will do anything for a buck and if that means selling you down the river the family business will do just that.

Kerry also has a black mark with china but he has not been working for chinese business and military interests like the bush family has been doing for over 25 years.

In Ron Sushind's 01/17/2004 New York Magazine entitled "Without a Doubt", Ron states
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Does this sound like "Jim Jones"? With the help of the republican reality invention machine, we have the worst of all senarios; The Blind is leading people that can see!!!!!

Yup. Psychologically these folks are very similar to the Moonies, Branch Davidians, Scientologists, People's Temple kool-aid drinkers, etc. They can handle a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance simply because they've become very adept at compartmentalizing their beliefs, their actions, and whatever information they store in their memories. The stuff that contradicts them just gets locked away, merely to be denied later on.

Steve so glad to see you post with supporting information on this very issue and frame the discussion of it for what it really is, a cult. The more benign phrase "cognitive dissonance" is not something the "masses" easily identify.

Keep on using that word when describing this man and the blind faith of his hero worshipping cult members.

I had made this very argument with one of our favorite Shrub supporters and said that the problem is even more serious and more tragic than what occurred with Jim Jones. It's worse because it's one thing that Shrub supporters willingly have drunken the deadly Kool-Aid and may suffer the tragic consequences of it, but it is quite another problem that many people who live in a reality based world and haven't even gone near the Junior Kool-Aid will suffer the same consequences. A cult that can control the fate of non-cult members....frightening and tragic.

Read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" to understand this phenomenom. Watch "Outfoxed" to see it in action.

This is pretty mind-boggling but it makes sense. Someone had mentioned that the Bushies act as if they're hypnotized-- the narrow range of focus, apparent lack of reasoning, etc. They're definitely not rational, in fact, you cannot reason with them. I concluded long ago that when it comes to Dub's followers, logic has nothing to do with it. It's some sort of scary blind faith. And it's creepy.

This post and thread are a virtuoso demonstration of every Leftist cliche and reference in the book. Bravo.

The rightward trend of the American electorate ---of which y'all are very evidently ignorant--- is also a rejection of your self-notions of patriotism. Most Americans do not like pessimists who villify the President while he works to make good on his promises to keep us safe. President Bush has kept us safer than anyone might have expected in the aftermath of the atrocities of 11 September 2001. The majority of this country recognizes that ---and they absolutely reject the lies of the Michael Moore-on Left ("There is no terrorism...").

Beslan, Bali, Madrid, Manhattan all prove to those who would know that there is an evil force in the world ---and it calls itself Islam. When these filthy Submitters commit another atrocity against us on our own soil, very few real Americans are going to care what you chicken littles have to say about our allegedly stolen civil rights because you have already exhausted yourselves lying about them and keeping us from the kinds of measures that would have prevented a recurrence of such violence. And for what reason? Because your sense of propriety is perverted. Because you are mere partisans. Because you have hatred for our leaders.

Misspell that. Mock that accent. Seethe and corrode. Be sick and lose your power. Believe the worst of one half and not the other because that is how you identify yourself ---even if it costs the whole of your principles to do so.

The trouble with studies is that they are often used to make assertions that the actual data cannot support. I think that is happening a bit in this case.

For the sake of this argument, let's give the good people at PIPA all the benefit of the doubt and assume their sampling is good and the results can be generalized to the entire U.S. electorate (I skimmed the demographics quickly and I didn’t see any red flags), their data is accurately reported, and the statistical methods they employed to crunch the numbers sound.

Let us also go ahead and take the data at face value and stipulate that yes, (generalizing) more than half of Bush supporters held beliefs about the Iraq War, the Kyoto Treaty and war crimes court that were errant in favor of George Bush. (Although when I look at the data they got from the questionnaire, sections of it are missing, for example Question 7 has 2 parts, ‘a’ and ‘b’. Question 7a and the results are listed, but 7b and all the way down to Question 12 are excluded with the note, “to be released”. I wanna see those questions and wonder why they were with held). Let us also assume all of the people surveyed answered the questions honestly and accurately.

Because the question was asked of Bush supports, (roughly) ‘if you had accurate information about the presence of WMDs, etc., would you change your mind about voting for Bush’, we can assert that:

If the estimated %50 of the electorate that are currently supporting George Bush for President knew that the Duelfer Report stated that Iraq did not hold significant WMDs, then enough people would change their votes and John Kerry would be elected.

But that is not what is claimed in the article cited, nor in this blog entry. What is asserted is that Bush supports are more uneducated about their candidate than Kerry supporters are about theirs. To make that assertion, there would have to be a whole second part of this study.

All the questions framed by the poll takers were ones that were likely to be common misconceptions of those on the political right, (and rightly so as this study was to find the misconceptions of Bush supporters). It did not include any questions directed to find common misconceptions of those on the political left, as they were completely left out of the study.

If questions that Kerry supporters were likely to have inaccurate information about were also on the questionnaire, such as, “Did Dick Cheney receive a kick back payment from Halliburton after the Bush Administration awarded the company a no-bid contract to manage the oil supply in Iraq” (he did not, as the payments he got from the company were merely deferred compensation that he that the company owed him from his time as their CEO that he would have received even if the company had folded, a flat fee they were paying off over time); or, “Does the Bush Administration seek to out law stem-cell research” (it does not, but does restrict the federal funding of research that uses anything other than the 22 (ish?) stem-cell lines that were already in use at the time the rule took effect), and then asked, ‘if you found out differently would you change your vote’, THEN we would have a really useful study.

THAT would be a study for which we could confidently print the headline:

Bush Supporters %62 stupid/Kerry Supporters %51 stupid: Kerry supporters way less stupid!

But as it stands, we can’t because we have half a study.

Further, there is nothing in this study to suggest that this kind of “mass Stepford complex” as one that is confined to Bushies and does not occur to Kerryies, OR is not just an across the board American phenom. If you really wanna get big, what is to say that people in every country on the planet don’t do this, and it this is not just a function of human nature.

Neither does it take into account that we have a relatively uninformed electorate. We have a huge group of people in this country that are educated in sound bites, and that vote according to random emotional reactions, “my corporate daddy doesn’t love me, I am voting for Kerry”, or “that hippie stole my girlfriend, I am for Bush”. People can pick a candidate according to how he makes them feel and then only pay attention to the headlines that reinforces the decision they have already made.

I, of course, am not one of those people. Please ignore the fact that I have not in 17 years voted for a candidate outside of the party my parents raised me to identify from tot-hood.

I am a former therapist, and it is my belief that people believe what they want to believe. How many people have you run into in life that just will not change their mind about something, even when something that contradicts their beliefs happens right in front of their own eyes.

I don't want to be one of those people who just posts links to their own blogs on other people's threads: but this is an issue I've been following really closely the last few months. I think the cognitive dissonance going on in America is akin to the pluralities of Democrats that supported Vietnam right up until LBJ left office, and the throngs of Repubs that supporterd Nixon right up until (and sometimes after) he was forced to resign.

Anyway, I wrote a diary on it over at DailyKos. I think I'm going to start using this site more though, Kos has been just overwhelmed with new people lately.

Toby, what you see as the great white leader, we see as the ubiquitous Kilroy was Here. While you see GWB as a great leader, we see the guy who hasn't ever gotten anything right and the only reason he still is standing is because someone else bailed him out.

Sorry that your "reality" is so disjointed from what the majority of the world perceives. You might try to figure out why so many of the world doesn't see the world in the same way you do. Usually when an overwhelming majority sees things differently than you, it's because you are missing something.

Why do you think you are more informed than Anthony Zinni, Scowcroft, Merrill A. McPeak or Richard Clarke? Have you spent decades studying national security issues (like they have)? Or perhaps you are more like Bush and believe that your "gut" tells you more truth than those experts that have decades of experience.

Some questions: What evidence do you have that would make anyone think your version of reality is correct? We at the Left Coaster at least try to match our thoughts and perspectives with others - and we use experts whenever we can.

Since I don't remember you having a very "Christian" perspective in your posts, I wonder how do you interpret Bush's Christianity? Do you believe that Bush thinks that God is the source of all his decisions (as he says, they come from his gut - so God must be influencing his gut)?? Are you influenced by Bush's gut? If not, who does influence your thinking?

Toby, The right never hated Clinton? They were never pesimistic we he was in office? I love it when the right whines about the left hating Bush, becuase they act like the Clinton years never happened.

Tom Frank's book is "What's the Matter with Kansas", NOT "What's Wrong with Kansas".

Call it a cognitive problem if you want. But I have had more than one Repub who disagrees with many GOP/Bush actions tell me they'll vote for the GOP anyway, because the Dems want to turn the country over to Blacks and Mexicans. I don't buy this "cognitive" stuff. The base of the GOP is just plain bigoted. I see it every day.

Personally I'm trying to figure out if Toby's comment was for real or if he was just helping out by providing an example of what this post is all about.

Bravo Toby!

No terrorism problem?

Who said that?

You're right Byron; correction made.

thanks

Toby - By your postings, you merely verify the 'cult' theory.

Toby feels that the Islam is the "evil" force in the world. That must mean he feels that Christianity is the "good" force in the world. Does that mean that any act perpetrated in the name of Christianity is a de facto "good" act? If that is the case, then every Black lynched in the South by the KKK was a good thing. After all, the KKK strives for a pure Christian nation, which is a good thing, right Toby?

If Toby feels that this is the case, then we can discount anything he has to say. If he disagrees, then his certainty in the goodness of Christianity must be questioned...along with his certainty in the evil of Islam.

That is the main problem we face...the blind certainty through which the right wing sees the world. There are only 2 choices/sides to any issue...our/theirs, right/wrong, good/evil. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. But then again, it works in their manufactured reality of which we are not a part. Thank God for that.

You know, it almost makes me feel better that Bush's supporters really don't support these extreme positions.

Checque,

Almost?

Cultlike, my ass. There is a greater diversity of thought and opinion on the right and center right today than in the Democratic left.

Republicans love the President who leads their party...whooo hooo, must be a cult. Shocking!

Hmmm...where have we seen cultlike dedication to a leader recently? Let's examine the cultlike leftists who worshipped the atavistic, juvenile Clinton? Who swallowed (pun entirely intended) his lies and endless stream of large and small deceits? Who excused his personal and political failings at every turn?

Clinton's cult just knew - KNEW - that EVERYTHING Republicans said about him was a lie. He was the finest President of this or any generation. He and Saint Hillary were the paragons of all moral and political virtue...I'll stop.

The most prominent cult I see today is the leftist cult of Bush haters. They've got a doctrinal and ideological community of enforcers -- Michael Moore, call your office -- who make Lenin and Beria look like pussies. They unashamedly compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin. Their Krupp is George Soros, writing the checks to keep the hate flowing.

There's a cult all right...but on your side, not ours. This sort of study done in reverse -- that East Coast/West coast liberals as naive, blinkered, arrogant, hyporitical and hateful members of a vicious cult -- would bring howls of protest for you, wouldn't it?

And strip off the academic veneer and this study is bascially just one more tool in the hate speech you all enjoy so much.

Clinton's cult just knew - KNEW - that EVERYTHING Republicans said about him was a lie. He was the finest President of this or any generation. He and Saint Hillary were the paragons of all moral and political virtue...I'll stop.

Good because your're just embarassing yourself.

No no muckcat...I stopped because recounting the catalog of the Clinton Cult's obesessive blindness and Hitlerian devotion wasn't required...the point was made and you know it.

Boy, if you want to see cognitive dissonance in action, just ask an evangelical christian what their opinion is about Reverend Moon.

I tried it yesterday, and the conversation immediately shut down.

Moon is a potent weapon for the U.S. rightwing, what with his enormous funding of righty organizations and the Washington Times, which he owns.

But I get a sense that the evangelicals aren't entirely comfortable with a guy who says,"Tear down the cross" and claims to be the next Messiah.

What gives?
Anybody got any recent insights on the Moon/U.S. evangelicals' weird relationship?

This enquiring mind desires more info.

I question the premise that the cult's cognitive dissonance began with Bush's "pitch-perfect" response to 9/11. The president's actions following the attacks were not terribly impressive: seven minutes of inaction, run and hide in Nebraska, then lie about a threat to Air Force One. His subsequent photo-ops with bullhorns and Cathedral speeches were beatified by a subdued press and lapped up by a nation desperate for leadership -- any leadership. And don't forget we've gone from "dead or alive" to "I'm not that concerned about Osama bin Laden." The cult was in place and ready to worship before 9/11. It just needed a catalyst to make it blossom. The catalyst wasn't Bush's response, it was the event itself. As the PIPA study points out, the enduring casualty of those attacks has been the truth.

The GOP has absolutely used cult indoctrination techniques to produce the reality skew so pronounced in Bushism followers:
"Cults often use behavior modification on followers, such as thought- stopping techniques and instilling an 'us-versus-them' mindset. With thought-stopping techniques, members are taught to stop doubts from entering their consciousness about the cult, often with a key phrase they repeat [‘Bush is strong on terrorism;’ ‘We have to take the fight to the terrorists;’ ‘flip-flop;’ ‘liberal’]. Phobia indoctrination is also used, where cults play on a person's irrational fears, with threats such as the person will develop cancer [die from a terrorist attack] or go insane [have gay children] if he ever leaves or questions the group.”

George "Jim Jones" Bush and Dick "Heaven's Gate" Cheney have many of the characteristics of your basic lunatic cult leader.
Characteristics of a cult leader:
Glibness/Superficial Charm; Manipulative; Grandiose Sense of Self; Pathological Lying; Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt; Poor Behavioral Controls (first debate? enough said); Irresponsibility / Unreliability; Lack of Realistic Life Plan / Parasitic Lifestyle

There are also bizarre parallels between the mainstream media, particularly Fox News Channel, and the phenomenon of the "Cult Apologist":
When educating yourself about cults and their techniques of control it is important to recognize that there is also misleading information distributed and promoted. That is, the cults themselves may have front organizations or groups that pose as neutral resources. Likewise, some cults have sponsored/funded academics or others who may apologize (see "Cult Apologists") for their behavior and/or attack their critics.

Without a doubt, the Bushist movement is a cult.

In the 'blog' world, a perfect example of this is 'Little Green Footballs' where the deeply racist hatemonger Charles 'Squeaky' Johnson cut-n-pastes both news and opinion then puts the most pro-bush spin on every item. His deluded followers then parrot his words and opinions to each other and indulge in armchair horrorshow wishfests. Johnson is truly as despicable as they come.

I'd love to see a poll which attempts to correlate a relationship (if one exists) between psychological effects from 9/11 and 'Republicanism'.

http://www.unhcc.unh.edu/resources/differential_diagnosis.html

Describes various reactions to 9/11, some (adjustment disorder) of which to me describe Republicans as a group:

"Depressed mood, Changes in sleeping or eating patterns, Social withdrawal, Mild suicidality, Fear/anxiety about future, Apathy and emotional numbing, Low self-esteem, Anxiety, Increased motor activity, Potential excess use of alcohol or drugs."

(My bolds added)

Perhaps as a nation we are struggling with huge social disorder problem due to 9/11?

Bad Man,

He and Saint Hillary were the paragons of all moral and political virtue..

This is your own personal delusion Bad Man. Clinton suffered almost universal condemnation for his stupid personal behavior. Where were you when that was happening? And St. Hillary? For God sake man it's the Rightwingers that are obsessed with her! They've pretty much handed her the next Democratic nomination. Think maybe the Democrats can have a say in that when the time comes. Get over it already. What is it with you people and Hillary Clinton. Get some help.

The fact that many people in this country could seperate Bill Clinton's personal weaknesses and failings from his ability to lead the country through a time of great economic and social prosperity as president is hardly something that I am ashamed of.

I was greatly disappointed by his efforts to conceal embarrassing personal actions.

Fact remains. He was a great president.

Assuming UM's PIPA is reasonably objective and a scientifically based survey (a reasonable assumption in itself), it certainly does appear to objective observers that most Bush supporters are acting like a cult. IMHO, Toby's screed confirms that, as well as a few others above.

I'm paid well to work with facts and data every day in a government setting, and if I was as delusional and selectively ignorant as most of the wingnuts who think W is divine, I wouldn't have a job. The fact that just about half the country is delusional and unaccepting of facts, preferring bromides and illusions, scares me. The next question is obviously "What is to be done?," but if W is reappointed, then it becomes moot. We're then on our way to an American Kristallnacht and more terrorism. If you know anything about fascism, you'd know that we're well on our way towards that too.

PLEASE...
INFO/OPINIONS REQUESTED:

Boy, if you want to see cognitive dissonance in action, just ask an evangelical christian what their opinion is about Reverend Moon.

I tried it yesterday, and the conversation immediately shut down.

Moon is a potent weapon for the U.S. rightwing, what with his enormous funding of righty organizations and the Washington Times, which he owns.

But I get a sense that the evangelicals aren't entirely comfortable with a guy who says,"Tear down the cross" and claims to be the next Messiah.

What gives?
Anybody got any recent insights on the Moon/U.S. evangelicals' weird relationship?

This enquiring mind desires more info.

(Sorry to post this twice, but I am really fascinated by this phenomenon and strongly desire some info at this time)

Read David Niewert's work on the rise of pseudo-fascism in the US: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_dneiwert_archive.html#109028353137888956

One of Bush Cult's most drastic manufactured reality (AKA Lie) is that Bush will protect the U.S. from a Jihad attacks. Aside from uncompetently presiding over the most deadly Jihad attack on U.S. soil, Bush's pre-911 counter terrorism plan was:
Let’s review the Bush Administration “War on Terrorism” before September 11!!!

1. Slashed 2002 Budget proposed Justice Department counterterrorism funding by half a billion dollars.
2. Delayed Richard Clark’s urgent Al Qaeda roll back strategy by deciding to slow burn a modified plan through sub-level cabinet officials.
3. Demoted the counterterrorism office to sub-cabinet level, lowering counterterrorism priority.
4. After receiving a January 26, 2001 FBI document, confirming authorities believed there was clear evidence linking the USS Cole bombers to Al Qaeda, failed to order a respond to the USS Cole bombing.
5. In May 2001, awarded the Taliban $43 million for supposedly banning opium production in 2000.
6. Cancelled two cruise missile submarines, Clinton stationed on alert in the Indian Ocean with orders to fire missiles at Afghanistan Al Qaeda camps with six hour notice, ending the covert deployment.
7. Suspended U.S. participation in allied efforts to penetrate offshore banking havens that secretly protect drug tax evaders, drug traffickers and terrorist cash flows, until the summer of 2001.
8. Immediately began planning to invade Iraq and promoting a $9 Billion rudimentary Ballistic Missile System design to intercept North Korean missiles with inadequate testing.
9. Derailed U.S. Senate attempts to implement Hart-Rudman counterterrorism national security recommendations.
10. Threaten to veto U.S. House proposal for shifting an addition $800 million from missile defense to counterterrorism to bridge a critical funding gap.
11. Discontinued unarmed UAV Predator Drone flights and allowed the armed Predator to bog down in bureaucracy.
12. After receiving 39 Bin Laden threat briefing between Jan. 20 and Sept. 11, 2001, the infamous August 6 briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.”, numerous summer 2001 warnings that the system was blinking red, Bush went on vacations for 27 day in August 2001.
13. Could not describe a clear plan to mitigate the risks posed by the unusually high warning levels. 70 field investigations should have suggested a major problem. If seventy rat traps are tripped, you should assume you have a major problem with rats and the traps are warnings not solutions.
14. Top Pentagon officials abruptly cancelled September 11, 2001 airline flights on September 10, 2001.
Bush did everything except fly the plane for Al Qaeda. If this is strong on defense, I wonder what weak looks like.

Ginger (1:23 AM) had far and away the most sensible comment here. I'm surprised no one wants to respond to it.

Bush's Cult - Only a dem could believe the context of that ridiculous article.
FOXNEWS has absolutely nothing to do with ones perception of the root causes of 911.
Lets look at some hard cold facts us Beer Drinking/Women plowing red necks talk about at the local pub.
1) Since 911 the DEMS can't buy an election. What does that mean? Simple, the majority of Americans hold the Clinton Admin 8 years of do nothing policy towards terrorist acts accountable which have allowed the GOP to gain complete control of all Govt. branches via elections.
2)WTC 1 , OBL's declaration of war against America 1998, Kobar towers, US embassies, USS Cole witnessed no retaliation from the Clinton Admin whatsoever.
3) 911 was planned in 96 and the FBI new york office gave constant warnings to the Clinton Admin. We know of John O'Neill's (head of NY FBI office) increasing frustration with the Clinton Admin. lax attitude toward the threat posed by bin Laden, including the possibility that Al Qaeda sleeper cells were already operating within the United States. This lax attitude on national security is also documented in a book by Col Patterson who carried the nuclear codes for Bill Clinton "Dereliction of Duty" which also described in detail a PDB "Operation Bjoinsky" Bubba received in 96 which stated OBL's intention of flying planes in to American Bldgs.
I personally believe OBL's motivation was due to the fact S. Arabia used American troops in the 1st gulf war and laughed at OBL's request to take on Iraq with his Al Qaeda troops. His Psych was harmed esp. after taking credit for Russia's defeat in Afghanistan. OBL had to show the Muslim world he's still King by taking on the USA with expectations of defeating America in the Mtns of Afghanistan as he did Russia.
I wonder what the U. of Maryland's study found when watching DEMS on the news circuits all regurgitating the same lines given to them from their Puppet Master Terry McCalliffe (SP)
Chevy

Chevy...#1 example of Bushitter cult member.

First and foremost, it was a general knowledge, fact-based questionnaire.
The general knowledge of world affairs and current events is what is driving people to support Kerry. Not the other way around. These people were asked general knowledge, current events questions first. The Bush people were mostly wrong and their knowledge of current events was poor, when told to accept something as factual for the sake of responding to another question that is when the cognitive dissonance became apparent because they responded differently when told to answer a question based on an assumption of a fact which they did(the wmd question is the example of this)and their responses to this contradicted what their responses to factual reality in the world. This proved that their cognitive dissonance was a driving factor in their support for their candidate, Bush.

The facts are driving the support for Kerry.
False factual Beliefs, blindfaith, and cognitive dissonance are what drives the members of the Bush cult supporters.

The PIPA poll shows a combination of ignorance, credulity, successful self-deception, and a few other ingredients that can be summarized as "blind faith" or cult behavior in a large portion of the devoted Boosh "core". Joe Conason and Franken speculated today about how such monumental "cognitive dissonance" (or outright stupidity) could persist when even Fox contradicts much of their creed. Theological terminology may be warranted in discussing PIPA, but this is not really a case of confusing politics with religion under the leadership of our Texas-league Tartuffe, but of the establishment of political allegiance as a Fundamentalist religion in its own right. It is one of the core features of Fascism. The truly scary phenomenon is the experience of many Booshies of a borned agin psychological high, engineered by adroit revivalist exploitation of their panic and hysteria as the world grows increasingly dangerous, confusing, and secular-- and different. This political version of flat-earthism results in a mindset such that once CONVERTED, the BELIEVER readily accepts the demonization of heresy (and science) as well as the denial of evidence. The True Believers become locked (brainwashed)into a worldview that only generations of patient teaching, or immediate confrontation with bloodshed can change. The more threatened they feel when contradicted by mere reality, the more fervent and dangerous they become.

ladies and gentleman it is very simple.

The reality is that those misinformed bush followers are big consumers of right wing propaganda media on radio,tv and the internet. They are misinformed because many many people work very hard everyday to keep them misinformed. True some small portion willingly close their eyes and ears, but the 24/7 right wing agitprop machine is the dominant factor.

First and foremost, it was a general knowledge, fact-based questionnaire. The general knowledge of world affairs and current events is what is driving people to support Kerry" No Name

What an exercise in futility. On my way home from work I turn Hannity's radio program on who has been sending someone out in the streets of NY and asks who they're voting for. NY of course supports Kerry. As a goof Hannity will sometimes ask if they support his running mate Dick Cheney. Most respond with yea, he's cool!! Other times Hannity will ask why they support Kerry and they become speechless. They have no answer. Based on the majority of those questioned one could assume DEMS in NY are total Idiots. So as far as that questionnaire goes IMHO it was nothing more then an exercise in futility and politically motivated to paint republicans as idiots. I personally would not think much of someone who actually took that report at face value and failed to see the motivation it originated from. I don't equate Intelligence or education to one's political choice. I believe that choice comes from one's life experiences.

ladies and gentleman it is very simple.

The reality is that those misinformed bush followers are big consumers of right wing propaganda media on radio,tv and the internet. They are misinformed because many many people work very hard everyday to keep them misinformed. True some small portion willingly close their eyes and ears, but the 24/7 right wing agitprop machine is the dominant factor.

I think we all know that Bill Clinton did not have the best relationship with the military.

Somalia was ill conceived as was Haiti.

The cuts probably went a little deeper than they should have but they were really just a continuation from Bush 1 when everyone felt that in the post-Cold War environment we could afford to scale back. Dick Cheney seems to forget that he was proposing the same cuts in weapons and force size that he now accuses Kerry of pushing as if it was some treasonous attempt to destroy the military. Let's be real. And what's the current strategy? Smaller more mobile forces! Well la de da.

Let's not forget. Morale aside (I won't speak to the morale issue since I've never been in the military) it was the military personnel, and equipment left after Clinton that performed so well in Afghanistan. Donald Rumsfeld did not single handedly revitalize the military between January 2001 and November 2001. It might have been his plan that got used. But the forces and hardware were there. So spare me the dramatics about Clinton gutting the military.

Did he have a great relationship with the military. No. That was doomed from the get go by his Vietnam skeletons and by Don't ask don't tell. Did he try to destroy the military. No.

Chevy, my apologies for the No Name post above...rushed out to get child at school ...anyway it was me.

Secondly...anything you quote or cite from fellow cult member and honorary Bush media conman diciple Sean Hannity is about as valid as believing anything Baghdad Bob said during the Iraq Invasion. The man is a propaganda artist...did you ever, ever hear of editing. What was his "motivation" for this segment. I am amazed that you can't see that...not. Please.

Secondly...anything you quote or cite from fellow cult member and honorary Bush media conman diciple Sean Hannity is about as valid as believing anything Baghdad Bob said during the Iraq Invasion. The man is a propaganda artist...did you ever, ever hear of editing. What was his "motivation" for this segment. I am amazed that you can't see that...not. Please.

LOL Emal, I don't believe that. His raidio show is live daily from 3 to 6. I turn him on around 5:30 on my way home from the office. Many times he does his show from a HS or whatever. My 13 year old daughter argued with her history teacher last year over Clintons impeachment. History teacher said he was never impeached. This year her health teacher claims she never heard of Condi Rice or Tommy Thompson but tells her class she's a big Kerry supporter. So anything i hear doesn't surprise. Most could careless except for us political junkies. And that's why we're here.
Have a great weekend i'm out of here and am off to Chinatown this weekend to do some early XMAS shopping. I know..I'm a cheap SOB..Rolex watches in Chinatown sell for 30 bucks.

Thanks Tom for noticing me.

I have been checking back to see what kind of response my post got, and I was kinda discouraged. I spent a lot of time on it and thought it was a well reasoned analysis of the topic.

Some random assumptions one could choose from as to why no one is addressing the argument I made:

1) Every one thinks it was completely brilliant and there is nothing to contradict in it or add to it.

I don't think that is the consensuses of the posters here, because the conclusion of my piece is that this study does not prove that Kerry supporters are more objective thinkers than Bush supports. I think that we can safely reject this theory as so many people continued to post assertions that the "Bush Cult" exists and imply that such blind faith is only something that happens on the Right.

2) Everyone thinks it is a complete piece of trash and not worthy of comment.

I have to reject this one right off because, well, it crushes my ego to think that something I worked hard on was crappy. Add to that the fact that every one so enthusiastically responded to Toby, who wrote something far less compelling than I did, and who, in fact, was behaving like a Troll.

3) It was way to long.

Could be that no one read it.

4) It was based on sound methods of statistical analysis and data application, and their ain't nothin' more boring than statistical analysis and data application, especially when it is sound.

I think that the "Boring" argument is one to take into account, however, that only holds for the first half of the post, as the second half seemingly contradicts the original assertion made in the discussion. There was even a bit of provocative humor in my headline example:

"Kerry supporters way less stupid!"

5) There exists, right here in this discussion among liberals, the same phenomenon that the study shows exists among conservatives.

Implicit in every post about the “Bush Cult” is the belief that there is no “Kerry Cult” or at least that the blind faith on the left is no where near what it is on the right; and that this study by the University of Maryland proves it.
I have completely deconstructed this assumption.

Despite the fact that I have basically said, “ummm… nuh uh” to Steve’s post, and backed it up with logic that no one has yet poked any holes in (not even Steve), John Owens, Mary, T2, Dorothy M. Ligon, The Professor, Checque, Nikto, Philboid Studge, GN, Jerry, YFND, A_Retrogrouch, Smooth, _, Lorenzo, Patience, and Emal have all COMPLETELY ignored my “facts” (which remain facts as long as it goes unchallenged by this group) and continued in their own cognitive dissonance.

That’s right people, I am calling you out by name! Gonna notice me now! Wanna piece of me? Do ya!? Do ya!?

If that ain’t enough to motivate you to talk back to me, I now point out my own Achilles Heel so that anyone who wants to know the easiest place to begin to shut me down,

I will reiterate my own non-scientifically based and completely attackable assertion as I believe that the lack of comment on my original post only bolsters it:

“it is my belief that people believe what they want to believe.”

People. Not just Bushies. People.

And Liberals are people too.

I guess the big lie works which doesn't get those who fall for the big lie off the hook. You've got liars and dupes who consistently fall for the lies. Bring on the kool-aid. There are even people willing to pay for it first.

The cult refuses to hold Bush responsible for anything. There are a million "dog ate my homework excuses". Clinton was not in office on 9/11, George Bush was suppose to be in charge. You have to be divorced from any reality to not hold the person in charge accountable for results. I blame 9/11 on the four unethical supreme court justices for selecting an incompetent person with common interest. Regardless of how the cult blames others for Bush's failures, he didn't have a clue and didn't give a shit before 9/11 and nothing has changed. The CIA told Bush that the country was at risk. Bush reacted in his usual incompetent slacker way. He did the same thing he did when his air unit was on 24 hour alert. He was on leave at his ranch. The cult will never understancd that fact. We all pay for this insanity.

Ginger, your comments were too long. You have to come out swinging and then supply your evidence. Just like in a newspaper article.

The bozos around here don't know how to deal with nuance or complexity. Bush's adherents are cult members because Leftists don't know what it's like to want to vote for their own guy rather than against the other guy.

Is that the Tom Maguire? Maybe Krugman's reference to Steve is bringing some big guns y'alls way.

But Toby I don't wanna come out swinging. I just wanna have a real debate.

sigh.

...packing up my toys to go find some nerdy kids to play with.

I have been checking back to see what kind of response my post got, and I was kinda discouraged. I spent a lot of time on it and thought it was a well reasoned analysis of the topic.

Ginger,

Sorry to ignore you.

I don't find any point of disagreement with your analysis.

I completely agree that people, left and right, believe what they want to believe. The reasons are as many as you could count.

Simple example. The debates. People can watch the same exchange between the two candidates and still believe that their prefered candidate "won" or answered the most questions honestly.

I'm not interested in the rhetoric. I believe a change in leadership is needed for the sake of the country and the world. I disagree with many of Bush's policies and I think John Kerry will govern more to my liking.

I'll be voting accordingly.

And Liberals are people too

Glad you noticed.

Okay, Ginger, I'll bite. BTW: your post was very thoughtful. You are right it would have been a different study to see what Kerry voters thought about other issues - but it is clear that most of these issues are ones that are ones normally found in the elections (and not whether Cheney has enriched himself during his bestowing no-bid contracts on his former company - although if his stock pays off, he certainly will do that).

I am a former therapist, and it is my belief that people believe what they want to believe. How many people have you run into in life that just will not change their mind about something, even when something that contradicts their beliefs happens right in front of their own eyes.

I agree that there are a number of people who refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes as a matter of course, but the real problem is when so many people are so wrong on a wide number of things because they have been propagandized. (Including my friend, Toby who believes that Bush is good on terrorism because he is so focused on hating the "islamofacists" rather than examining what experts say on this subject.) The real problem with many Bushies is their inability to accept the fact that 1) Bush is terrible on terrorism and 2) the justifications for the war were built on lies - and lies that the administration knew were lies when they were using them to sell their war. (Remember Andy Card's comment that you don't introduce a new product in August? Remember Wolfowitz' comment that they agreed that they'd use WMD because that was the easiest way to get their war?)

A great many Americans believed the lies, but many of them have come to realize that they were conned - and that the Bush administration were told this *before* the war and so the lie was purposeful. I've talked with people who are ashamed that they believed Bush because it makes them feel responsible for the war and the deaths.

What about those Americans who persist in believing there were WMD and that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? (My friend Toby does not fall into this bunch because he doesn't try to defend the lies - he just thinks the lies were worth it.) It seems to me that there are two possible answers to their blindness to the truth.

1) They are only getting their news from Fox or Rush and still have not heard that they've been conned. They are comfortable living outside reality (or having an inner reality that is based on something other than facts).

2) Others are suffering severe cognitive dissonance - and like the people I've talked to who now feel guilty, cannot bring themselves to believe they have supported something so insane as going to a war that was unnecessary and actually counterproductive. Despite hearing the facts, they are incapable of internalizing them. As this article says:

Due to "cognitive dissonance," if a person is asked if a certain idea is true, and his response is, "I don't know," it may not be the case that "sufficient evidence" is lacking. His "I don't know" may be of the "cognitive dissonance" variety. In sum, his doubt can be categorized as being of two possible types:

Type I,
the logical "I don't know," is based on logic and reason. For example, before probes landed on Mars and sent back reports, if a scientist had been asked if Mars had life on it, he would have answered simply, "I don't know." The basis for his answer was purely rational. He lacked information. Before the probes scientists had no conclusive proof about whether there was life on Mars. Possibly there was life there, but how could anyone know?

Type II,
the emotional "I don't know," is completely divorced from logic and reason. Doubt here is not based on a lack of evidence or a shortage of information. On the contrary, the evidence here is compelling, but doubt springs from a powerful and subconscious "I can't take it." Examples of this type abound, especially in the history of science where sufficient evidence existed to support new, revolutionary discoveries, but scientists could not accept the evidence, and remained skeptical, for the new findings flew in the face of their views. "Cognitive dissonance," the phenomenon that creates this type of doubt, can provoke bizarre thinking even in those who are noted for logic and reason.

Obviously, people can be very smart and still suffer from cognitive dissonance. And they will persist in believing something because the consequences of accepting the truth are too painful to face. How many of Bush's supporters are in this camp? I would say a good number of the "security moms" are - they are less likely to be pro-Bush because they like killing butt or believe lies are justified, but because they are fooled by the image of "George Bush, strong leader" created by master propagandists.

Further, there is nothing in this study to suggest that this kind of “mass Stepford complex” as one that is confined to Bushies and does not occur to Kerryies, OR is not just an across the board American phenom. If you really wanna get big, what is to say that people in every country on the planet don’t do this, and it this is not just a function of human nature.

That might be true of the study, and yes, humans all over the world can be ignorant or purposefully blind, but there is a great deal of evidence that Bush supporters back him based on faulty information. They believe he is pro-life, but how can one be pro-life if one glorifies in war? (Bring it on. Feels good.) Bush believes he is a strong leader, but he really is a potemkin president - lots of image, not much substance.

(BTW: I think Bush is just as deluded as his followers. He probably still believes he is a masterful person and filled with courage. The evidence doesn't back this up. But one thing we know about Bush is he doesn't need evidence to make up his mind because he believes his instincts are good - and perhaps he believes that God directs his instincts.)

Neither does it take into account that we have a relatively uninformed electorate. We have a huge group of people in this country that are educated in sound bites, and that vote according to random emotional reactions, “my corporate daddy doesn’t love me, I am voting for Kerry”, or “that hippie stole my girlfriend, I am for Bush”. People can pick a candidate according to how he makes them feel and then only pay attention to the headlines that reinforces the decision they have already made.

You are right that we do have an uninformed electorate. But much of that uninformed mass is because of purposeful propaganda - Rush and Fox and Frank Luntz and the Moonies and the rightwing think tanks that believe the ends justify the means. There has been a concerted effort to confuse the electorate. That is why we call this administration "Orwellian". In George Bush's world, War is Peace and Black is White. And as his synchophants believe, he is the best environmental president this country has ever had. These synchophants are either lying or deluded themselves.

So doesn't it make you just a little bit nervous to realize this administration believes that they create reality?

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Mary:

What about those Americans who persist in believing there were WMD and that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? (My friend Toby does not fall into this bunch because he doesn't try to defend the lies - he just thinks the lies were worth it.)

There's no reason to believe that Saddam's loyalists didn't collude with other Ba'athist types in Syria and smuggle stockpiles over the Iraqi border.

And while I don't believe that Saddam had any direct involvement in the atrocities of 11 September 2001, it doesn't really matter whether most or even a lot of Americans do. That would be because most of us see that a de-Saddamized Iraq is, in itself, a major accomplishment towards the ultimate goal of transforming the Muslim Middle East into a more democratized region where terrorism cannot find so easy a foothold.

But the mere fact that Zarqawi has now publicly pledged his allegiance to OBL makes Iraq a scene of the crime of Islamofascist terrorism. And our fighting men and women are there to fix that problem.

Try this for a competing theory to your belief in the "Bushies'" cognitive dissonance, Mary: anti-war/anti-Bush Leftists believe in the omniscience and ominpotence of the Bush Administration. There is nothing that Karl Rove cannot do. The President and his cabinet are such a bunch of machiavels that they have the power to simultaneously appear incompetent and as total pupper-masters.

What would you call this belief about y'alls enemies? If it isn't also cognitive dissonance, then it might be dissociative egotism ---a syndrome wherein all of one's own intellectual deficiences and flawed notions of moral integrity are necessarily exposed and refuted by others in the course of simply admitting aloud to being a Kerry supporter.

Puppet-masters, that is.

Muckcat,

Thanks for the response.

You will notice that I didn't include your name in my attempt to provoke a response. You posts didn't seem like you fell for the misapplication of the study.

ItalicsI'm not interested in the rhetoric. I believe a change in leadership is needed for the sake of the country and the world. I disagree with many of Bush's policies and I think John Kerry will govern more to my liking.Italics

Now that's what I am talkin' bout! I understand the stakes are high in this election, but must every thing be so dang dramatic! Can't someone want to re-elect Bush just because truly believe that the best bet for defeating terrorism is more stick, less carrot? How about making an attempt to agree to disagree? Must the other side always be the antichrist? Are we not vulnerable to same weaknesses as the opposition is?

Let's all take a lesson from Muckcat. ;)