Researchers unable to figure out why half of Americans believe WMDs were

[JohnnyRingo]

found in Iraq

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-iraq-believing-wmd,0,2506992.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

<excerpt>
Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents -- up from 36 percent last year -- said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.


If only they can isolate these nuts to a central location for further psychological study:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1679286/posts

Edited to add missing link

[unpossibles]

1. why is there a rule about not posting AP stories?

copyright infringement or just because it's not vetted through the Ministry of Truth?

"Not trying to break the rules about not posting AP stories, but I find it interesting why this keeps popping up in the news."

and they can't figure out why the news keeps mentioning this?
Wow - they are seriesly stupider than I thought, and that ways a lot.

[unpossibles]

6. ok, this one wins an Irony Award

"To: CedarDave
You know, I am starting to think that society can grow to the point where communications become such that every crackpot lunatic is afforded a perch on which to preach.

Once everyone can communicate with each other, society will fall simply because with so much communication it becomes impossible to tell the truth from the lies. The liars' opinions are never actually discounted when they speak regardless of how many times their lies are discredited. They are just embraced by other liars who have yet to be exposed.

Its death by 24 hour news cycle and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.


26 posted on 08/07/2006 10:20:37 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Amnesia is a train of thought.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies >"

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Huh?

Where have you seen a rule about not posting AP stories?

Edit: Oh. In Freeptown. Unsurprising.

[unpossibles]

9. not here - at Freeperville

according to the OP

[otohara]

23. This AP Story is Just A TAD Late - Harris Poll Released 7/21/06

the freepers should be elated that this came out while Dimson is on vacation and everyone is out of town. Hey, maybe that's why they held on to this for so long.

[Craig3410]

41. Wild guess: AP has a liberal bias?

:crazy:

[JohnnyRingo]

8. Free Republic has a list as long as your arm of sites they can't use

They routinely break copyright rules by posting lengthy articles in full without a link back to the original.

I think they've been successively sued and I know they recieve frequent "cease and desist" letters.

Robinson must really hate the AP...Maybe they're the ones that sued.

[Posteritatis]

15. Do you know who's on that list? I'm curious now. (n/t)

[JohnnyRingo]

30. Heh heh,I sure do....prepare to freak out

I saved the link a long time ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1111944/posts?page=1

"studlife" is one of the funnier ones.

On edit:
This $10,000 judgement against FR by Washington Post/Newsweek may be cause for the current flap over this posting:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707390/posts

Note how the Freeps claim "victory" because it was "only" 10k.

Hahahaha

[Craig3410]

42. They can't use Fox News?

BWAHAHAHA

:rofl:

[Ediacara]

44. I had to look, it's actually Washington University's

STUDent LIFE website.

[warrens]

26. They sued. So did WP and a couple of others

The FRetards post entire stories, and they got creamed in court.

[Demeter]

2. Because They Were TOLD So, Repeatedly, in Prime Time

by professional liars and self-dealing politicians, perhaps? Because the 4th Estate is now a graveyard of dead principles and gormless stenographers, unable to find the truth, let alone spread it?

Because the GOP wouldn't have it any other way. Has even ONE GOP'er come out and said that there were no such thing? I think not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. OMG their stupidity never ceases to amaze me

uh...because they did.

What is really sad is that a large number buy the lie that they did not, despite what Saddam did in the Iraq/Iran war and to his own people...and despite the overwhelming evidence found since we went in there.

He just didn't have nukes yet.

[liberal N proud]

4. Let's see, you have a regime that repeats it continually

Then you have a complacent media who is whoring for the regime and will pass the propaganda published by the regime with out any concerns.

To top it off you have the kool-aid crowd that just goes along with what ever the talking heads are regurgitating.

GEE! I wonder why they all believe in Santa Clause!

[CJCRANE]

5. What part of "in 2003"

do the freepers not understand?

[karlrschneider]

12. 2003? They can't even grasp anything over 20

without taking their shoes off...

[Canuckistanian]

47. Or 20 1/2 without taking their pants off.... n/t

[porphyrian]

10. From newsday, pusher of republican propaganda that claimed it. - n/t

[JHB]

17. Are you claiming Newsday's a "pusher of Republican Propaganda"?

You didn't read this part of the story, did you?

"I think the Santorum-Hoekstra thing is the latest 'factoid,' but the basic dynamic is the insistent repetition by the Bush administration of the original argument," said John Prados, author of the 2004 book "Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War."

Administration statements still describe Saddam's Iraq as a threat. Despite the official findings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has allowed only that "perhaps" WMD weren't in Iraq. And Bush himself, since 2003, has repeatedly insisted on one plainly false point: that Saddam rebuffed the U.N. inspectors in 2002, that "he wouldn't let them in," as he said in 2003, and "he chose to deny inspectors," as he said this March.

The facts are that Iraq -- after a four-year hiatus in cooperating with inspections -- acceded to the U.N. Security Council's demand and allowed scores of experts to conduct more than 700 inspections of potential weapons sites from Nov. 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003. The inspectors said they could wrap up their work within months. Instead, the U.S. invasion aborted that work.

As recently as May 27, Bush told West Point graduates, "When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity."

"Which isn't true," observed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania. But "it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said.


As mainstream papers go, Newsday has been pretty quick to highlight Bush's BS (in other words, not enough, but better than most). The wingnuts on Long Island can't stop squaking about it's "extreme left wing bias" and "liberal agenda".

[porphyrian]

18. I was thinking of newsmax initially, but I've given up on all MSM. - n/t

[LeftHander]

11. Researchers unable to pull head out of ass....

Cannot figure out why America continues to believe Iraq had WMDS after conservative controlled media and goverment lied about the existence of them for three years...and continue to lie about them to this day...Prick Sphinctorum was just plattered all over the news say Iraq had WMDs...and it boosted the polls...

[Marie26]

13. The truth was there

If anyone wanted to see it. We just didn't want to see it.

[NRaleighLiberal]

14. As Bill Moyers said, if something doesn't fit into the belief system,

it will not be accepted. The truth no longer holds any currency for many of our citizens...esp. the fundies.

[tridim]

16. You know what's really crazy?

Some idiot will read this headline and only see "Half of U.S. still believe Iraq had WMD's" and think to himself, maybe I should believe it too.

[MrPrax]

Or...

They might be foreigners and think that half of YOU are idiots

and then think...Is this the ONLY stupid thing Americans believe? ;-)

[whistle]

19. BushCo Kool aid made the difference

[LSK]

20. did they bother to watch FOXNEWS or listen to Rush???

:shrug:

[MazeRat7]

21. Faith: A belief with no factual basis. Seems to be a lot of that lately.

[Atman]

22. This says it all...

[Missy M]

24. Maybe half the Americans only have half a brain.

[marions ghost]

25. interesting

in addition to the recent propaganda on this topic, I sense a certain resistance to facing the truth. Because if you believe that there were no WMD you must admit that your govt deliberately lied and you were stupid enough to be completely sucked in. So people probably want to cut it both ways--something like "the war was a mistake" (ie. the administration's fault) but "Saddam did have WMD after all..." (so it was somewhat justified). People just don't want to accept that the US is capable of the most ruthless kind of imperialist invasions.

Some form of mass delusion seems to be taking hold, as a coping mechanism mostlikely.

[unpossibles]

35. good point

I've wondered about that too - like it's easier to remake their own internal reality than it is to admit that they were wrong or lied to, which for them must be some sort of personal shame since they are the "blame the victim" crowd.

I've seen this on another board; I had cornered a guy to explain to me why he thought "Kerry was as bad as Bush" after I finally got him to admit that Bush lied about Iraq/911/WMD. His answer: Kerry is as bad as Bush because he believed the lies. WTF!?!? But like I said, these are the folks who falsely believe that rape is the victim's fault and that every poor person is lazy and that every rich person is self-made. If they got swindled, it shows they are stupid, therefore they'd rather refuse to admit to what reality is.

so f'd up...

it's also backed up by two things: (1) they hear from their propaganda sources to not trust the other media, and (2) their propaganda sources sell them a load of BS.

[marions ghost]

38. thanks for elaborating

what you are saying rings true to me. I think you put your finger on it with the reference to feelings of personal shame and 'blame the victim' mentality --as being behind some of the ostrich syndrome involved in clinging to the discredited idea that Saddam had WMD.

Your 'Kerry is as bad as Bush' example is a perfect illustration about how this emotional underpinning works to produce some really warped thinking. And as you say the rightwing propaganda mill knows their constituency well... shame is a powerful form of social control.

-------------------------------------
Here are some basic insights on the topic of shame and how it can play into social psychology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame

To shame is to induce shame in others by attacking or destroying the personal dignity of a person or a group. Shame can be induced verbally by ridicule, name-calling or publicly exposing a person's or a groups vulnerability or weakness; and physically by assault, rape, and beating. Shaming actions attack and diminish the human dignity of a person or group and separates them from the human family.

When someone says "You ought to be ashamed of yourself", they often mean that the target did something that they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be shameful. Sometimes shortened to "Shame on you." this form of shaming shames the target as a human being, rather than the deed itself.

Shaming attacks human dignity. Since shame is a complicated and often taboo condition, people often confuse shame with guilt when they shame others. In addition, for those who care about human dignity, it is always important to separate false condemnation from genuine guilt as specious shame is often used as form of relational aggression against innocent people.

Self shame

It is also possible to self-shame with genuine or false forms of self-condemnation. Brian Moore in his novel Black Robe, later shown graphically in the film version, shows a Catholic priest who flagellates himself for having forbidden desires. Another form of self-shaming occurs in people who connect their internal self-worth with external conditions as in "I lost, therefore, I am a loser.", 'He rejected me, therefore, I am no good.', or "We were hit by a tidal wave, therefore, we were wrong". Because self-shame often depends on internalized ideologies of shamed vs shameless self-hood, it is often a powerful but covert form of religious, legal, or social control that begins in childhood .

Self-shaming can be internalized as an identity following abuse. A person can feel his dignity has been permanently lost, either by being a member of a group that is socially stigmatized or by experiencing abuse or ridicule. Children are especially vulnerable to formation of a self-shaming identity during their development.

[madmusic]

43. Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".




Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

* if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
* and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".


On cognitive dissonance and sour grapes

A more formal account

Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

[marions ghost]

48. thank you for that very relevant info

on cognitive dissonance. It seems many people have a tendency to put down deep grooves on certain subjects and even when presented with strong evidence to the contrary they cannot figure out how to make fresh tracks. It's a matter of flexibility, and also not having so much fear (or not reacting out of fear)IMO.

I wonder what would happen if the propaganda mills were not reinforcing this self-delusion? What if these people were told that God forgives them for being duped by criminal masterminds, and they need to come together and heal themselves of the hurt of being lied to and used by their own government? (I realize that's far-fetched, but I wonder if it's possible to change the message and have an effect on this particular instance of collective cognitive dissonance?)

[madmusic]

54. You're welcome.

Or another approach would be to teach practical logic in high schools. Then by the time people are ready to vote, they would know when they are being manipulated. That could be why it isn't a required subject. :)

All politicians take advantage of this, but the Repukes are very good at it. When Newt Gingrich came out with his "Language, A Key Mechanism of Control" is when things started getting really bad. The different parties could still have lunch and dinner together before that.

Check it out:

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/examples.newt.html

The sad part is, many of his robots think he was serious. All he was doing was trying to control the media.

EDIT: typo

[paparush]

27. In Other News - Researchers Learn that 1/2 of Americans can..

and regularly do, shove their heads up their @sses!

[otohara]

28. Hey World, American's Are Dumb

and dumber.

Just give us a little time to doze off and hear the subliminal media messages a few million more times and we'll prove you right!

[marions ghost]

39. you're missing the emotional component

Americans are very fearful. This makes them more receptive to media massage.

[helderheid]

29. Jesus they have GOT to be kidding. It's the MEDIA STUPID!

[AZBlue]

37. Yes...but...

The media just gives its audience what it wants. It's an entertainment company just like any other. If the public demanded real knowledge, they'd be forced to give it to us. But, for most Americans, that's too "scary" and "depressing."

I mean, come on, what's more important - WMDs or "Where is Suri Cruise"? The answer's obvious! :grr:

[AX10]

31. It's obviously the media.

[Disturbed]

34. Busholini spoof of looking for WMDs was obscene.

Thousands died & were maimed and still are due to the false claim about WMDs in Iraq. The Busholini Regime and Corp. Media are responsible for Illegaly invading Iraq,the continued Occupation and War Crimes.

[Mir]

32. Because our government is as smart as the Nazis were...

In fact they appear to be even more Nazi-capable than some of the Nazi's greatest stars, particularly Mr. Joseph Goebbels, who, along with successfully stripping Jews of any last shred of humanity and equating them with rats, so eloquently stated:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Truer words have never been spoken Joe. The fascinating thing about today though is that people are no longer shielded from "the truth." Everybody knows what's going on. Even Bushco itself has admitted - repeatedly - that there are no WMDs and still half - HALF - of America's population believes there were. Unbelievable. Absolutely fascinating. This may be due in large part to partisanship, but there can be little to no doubt that a good 1 out of every 4, if not 3, people in this country are just flat out fucking stupid. It's a shame.

[ItNerd4life]

33. Certain right wing radio stations say WMDs were found

and that they were made before 1991. This is why they believe it. However, as a General stated a while ago, "They weren't the WMDs we went to war for" or something similar to that affect.

The key to use against Repukes is that if WMDs did exist (I theorize this to win the argument), it's irrelevant because they weren't the ones we went to war for. Remember, Bush stated we were going in before Iraq becomes a threat.
But IRAQ couldn't become a threat if they weren't making NEW WMDs.

[AZBlue]

36. It's simple. And it's what the Dem Party still doesn't get.

Most of America is lazy and doesn't care. I'm sorry - it makes me sick to say that, but it's true. They want their "news in 90 seconds" (actual name of news "broadcast" here).

The Reps know this and are very good at using it to their advantage. They make quick, easy-to-understand news bites, that may or may not be factual, but nonetheless sound really good. Dems want to discuss and give all the details. That doesn't fit into 90 seconds. So, it doesn't get reported.

We have to figure out a way to encourage Americans to give a damn and to read and listen for more than a minute and a half. And, for those that still won't do it, we need to make the real news fit in those short, easy to remember soundbites. It's the dumbing of America folks - and as shameful as it is, just standing around shaking our heads about it won't educate the masses any.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

40. $900 million???

Does this figure seem a tad high to anyone else? It cost almost a billion dollars to send a bunch of people snooping around to various sites? Who the hell does these guys expense reports?

[JohnnyRingo]

46. Haha...Now that you mention it

You'd think that for $900m someone would have stopped by my house and spent the afternoon discussing the issue with me.

[smoogatz]

45. What Jung said about UFOs.

Either they exist, or a lot of people really WANT them to exist. The next question is, why? Now, we do have to concede that 300-500 spent, depleted or empty mustard gas shells have been found scattered around Iraq, left over from the pre-Gulf War I era. In doing so, we should remind our freeptard friends that these spent, depleted or empty shells did not constitute any meaningful threat to the U.S., Israel, or Iraq's neighbors prior to the invasion. The only way they'd have hurt anyone, essentially, is if they fell on them. And, if Bushco had gone before the American people in 2003 and said: "we're going to invade Iraq, spend a half-trillion dollars, kill a hundred-thousand or so Iraqis and take 20,000 casualties in the process because Saddam has 300-500 spent, depleted or empty mustard gas shells--most sentient Americans would have demanded his impeachment on the spot. No, a significant number of us WANT to believe that our alleged "leaders" are neither evil, nor idiots, nor insane, nor incompetent. Because the alternative, my friends, is almost too horrifying to contemplate.

[glitch]

49. Well said. It is too horrifying to contemplate for these 50% certainly

Or probably 20% (Jung's Judgers) want to believe in bushco anyway, and then an additional 30% find contemplating the alternative too horrific.

[Cleita]

51. Scott Ritter and William Pitt tried to do just that and

Scott Ritter got accused of being a child molester. Then Hans Blix came along and said the same thing. The same propaganda machine that enabled Bush and Blair to claim that there were WMDs kicked into high gear to promote this war by ignoring the worldwide protests against invading Iraq. If they had reported the truth, the kook-aid drinkers may not have drank the kool-aid.

[Norquist Nemesis]

50. Well, boys, you know how North Korea has those speakers...

we have the same thing right here in the good ole US of A! It's called RW propaganda! :banghead:

(Apparently, their research methodology doesn't include watching Faux or listening to Rush.)

[stop the bleeding]

52. MORANS n/t

[lonestarnot]

53. And I should question why the mess we find ourselves in today?

hmmmf.