Man, Amerikans sure are sloooooooooooow. Took you long enough to
figure out an AWOL son of a crook, ex-crack addict, dyslexic
alcoholic just might not be Je$us' representative here on Earth like
he claimed. That it's more likely that he just might be a figurehead
for the Texas Oil Mafia...
The American Way
David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor
Pravda.ru
Finally, after more than three years of sycophantic worship of the
corruptly appointed Bush dictatorship, some in the
corporate-controlled media in America are beginning to question what
more perceptive journalists had questioned years before: George W.
Bush's so-called "military" record.
Perhaps the reluctance to broach this issue, particularly amongst
Democrats, rose from fears of being accused of hypocrisy over their
previous assertions that Bill Clinton's youthful protests against the
war in Vietnam were irrelevant as to how he would perform as
president. But Clinton's protestations lacked the aura of hypocrisy
that surrounds Bush's alleged tenure in the National Guard. It is
one thing to let the world, for better or worse, know where one
stands on an issue. It is quite another to retreat to the safety of
an alternative service when one's own life might be on the line, yet
become a "war hawk" when others are being maimed and killed.
This article is certainly not meant to criticize those who, for
religious, moral or political reasons, selected alternative routes to
military service, but to condemn the vile and rancid hypocrisy of
self-proclaimed "war-time" dictator George W. Bush, who chose such an
alternative when his life was at risk, yet now lands on aircraft
carriers in military attire, and makes bellicose speeches about
"never backing down."
Although alleged "records" about Bush's tenure in the National Guard
are now being disseminated to quell rumors that Bush did not fulfill
all his required duties, they appear to be inspiring more questions
than answers. The primary one appears to be, "Was Bush being paid for
National Guard service while engaging in other enterprises, thus
making his alleged service' more a paper illusion than a reality?"
Would it not be the ultimate hypocrisy if the man who started the war
with Iraq, and whose political party persistently condemns those
living on government "doles," is revealed to have been the recipient
of unearned government income?
The fact that nobody can remember Bush during his "National Guard"
days (although don't be surprised if, in a few days, a "witness"
magically appears), and the acrimonious defensive posture of those
profiting from his dictatorship, also raises questions. This was
starkly revealed after one of the nation's biggest sell-outs--and the
man who lied to the United Nations--Secretary of State Colin Powell,
exclaimed "Don't go there," when a Congressperson tried to raise
questions about "Massa Bush's" military record.
Then there is the venal avarice of one of the primary provocateurs of
the Iraqi war, Dick, "I never met a deferment I didn't like" Cheney.
Using several such deferments to avoid military service in Vietnam,
Cheney has now also "bravely" become a "war hawk." >Latest News
The American Way
A Letter from Our Reader: "Stupid" is a naughty word
Too little, too late
Iraq Intelligence Failure Was Unavoidable
The kaleidoscopic arguments of Bush and Blair
And why not? Companies in which he and/or his cronies have financial
interests were "awarded" lucrative
"rebuilding" contracts in Iraq. Tax dollars to destroy a country, tax
dollars to rebuild it, young people dying to make it all happen,
while the rich avoid military service, yet instigate wars so they can
become richer. Ah, the American way!!
And legalities or illegalities, and little nuisances like "The Bill of
Rights," do not worry the Bush dictatorship, because in Cheney's hip
pocket is "duck hunting" buddy, and Supreme Court "(in)justice,"
Antonin Scalia, one of the architects of the Bush dictatorship (no
conflict of interest there I suppose), a virulent demagogue who would
probably be more at home in a white robe and pointed hat than a black
one, and a hypocrite who has arbitrarily determined that the legal
rules of ethics apply to everyone but him.
Finally one should not forget Secretary of Offense Donald Rumsfeld.
When I was a communications professor, I used to tell my students
that those with weak arguments usually endeavored to disguise such
weaknesses by talking loudly. So it was no surprise when newspaper
reports described Rumsfeld as "shouting" when responding to questions
about the failure to find "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.
There are some who have told me, with the most honorable of
intentions, that perhaps my work would be better received if I toned
down my "rhetoric." While I respect and value their opinions, it is
time to acknowledge that America is in the grip of an evil so
corrupt, so infectious, and so devious that it already may be too
late to find a cure. We now have a nation where outrage resounds and
the halls of Congress thunder with "indignation" because an overrated
singer exposed her overrated breast during an overrated football
game. Yet similar outrage is not expressed over the deaths of
hundreds of American and British soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis,
all caused by outright lies now being whitewashed as "intelligence"
failures.
Politicians bluster about "decency," but continue to find nothing
indecent about a thief who first stole the presidency, then exploited
military resources and personnel to satiate his megalomania and
enrich his cronies. And while Americans demand tougher laws and
penalties to combat "indecency," they remain disturbingly unconcerned
about how often the people entrusted to interpret the law arrogantly
place themselves above it.
So whenever a member of the Bush dictatorship talks about truth,
decency, ethics, or integrity, those listening would be wise to
remember the words Ralph Waldo Emerson said about an after-dinner
speaker: "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted
our silverware."

--= m K0 =-- wrote:

=> Vox Populi wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

"=> Vox Populi " <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:1r8Yb.36$uu3.22917@news.uswest.net...

You blithering idiot:
Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq
Highly Related to Support for War
Misperceptions Vary Widely Depending on News Source
Fox Viewers More Likely to Misperceive, PBS-NPR Less Likely
For release: 12 Noon, October 2, 2003 Contact: Steven Kull
202-232-7500
College Park, MD: A new study based on a series of seven nationwide
polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals
that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had
significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for
the war with Iraq.
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA)
at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals
that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according
to individuals' primary source of news.
Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to
have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS
are significantly less likely.
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through
September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links
between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons
of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world
public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60%
had at least one of these three misperceptions.
Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war.
Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above,
only 23% support the war.

Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support
the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions,
and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "While we cannot assert
that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq,
it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially
lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions."
The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly
depending on their source of news. The percentage of respondents
who had at least one or more of the three misperceptions listed
above is shown below.
None of the 3 misconceptions:
FOX 20%
CBS 30%
ABC 39%
NBC 45%
CNN 45%
PrintSources 53%
NPR/PBS 77%
1 or more misperceptions
FOX 80%
CBS 71%
ABC 61%
NBC 55%
CNN 55%
PrintSources 47%
NPR/PBS 23%
Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply
be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each
audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing
the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience.
Another key perception-one that US intelligence agencies regard as
unfounded-is that Iraq was directly involved in September 11.
Before the war approximately one in five believed this and 13%
even said they believed that they had seen conclusive evidence of
it. Polled June through September, the percentage saying that Iraq
was directly involved in 9/11 continued to be in the 20-25% range,
while another 33-36% said they believed that Iraq gave al-Qaeda
substantial support. [Note: An August Washington Post poll
found that 69% thought it was at least "somewhat likely" that Saddam
Hussein was personally involved in 9/11-a different question than the PIPA/KN
question that asked respondents to come to a conclusion.]
In the run-up to the war misperceptions were also highly related to
support for going to war. In February, among those who believed
that Iraq was directly involved in September 11, 58% said they would
agree with the President's decision to go to war without UN approval.
Among those who believed that Iraq had given al Qaeda substantial
support, but was not involved in September 11, approval dropped to 37%.
Among those who believed that a few al Qaeda individuals had contact
with Iraqi officials 32% were supportive, while among those who
believed that there was no connection at all just 25% felt that way.
Polled during the war, among those who incorrectly believed that
world public opinion favored going to the war, 81% agreed with
the President's decision to do so, while among those who knew that
the world public opinion was opposed only 28% agreed.
While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to
pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater
attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions.
Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more
attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who
mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as
they pay more attention.
The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans' political
positions.
Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have
misperceptions.

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "Cowboy67"
<cowboy67111NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
At least the average Russian doesn't believe his gov't ...
Why should you do that? Shouldn't you question Halliburton's crimes?
Or how Anthrax from a U$ military lab wound up in letters to leading
Demorats? Why we're in a war with Iraq instead of getting the Islamic
WMD that DOES exist in Pakistan? You know, Pakistan, that military
dictatorship that's currently harboring Bin Laden? Quite a chance
Bu$h is taking leaving those nukes right within reach of Al Qaeda
isn't it?
The Bu$h administration is either the greatest collection of
blundering, incompetent imbeciles the world has seen since the Hitler
administration, or they are the worst mass murderers in the
"civilized" western world seen since the Hitler administration.
Don't trust the government. Don't trust the media. Don't trust the
church. Then you will know the Truth.