« "One century past, a people's hope fulfilled" |
Main
| "Good Eats" hits road, stops in Evansville »
July 26, 2006
Collective Ignorance
How odd:
Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds. Pollsters deemed the increase both "substantial" and "surprising" in light of persistent press reports to the contrary in recent years.
And a confluence of opinion?
- Instapundit, "Apparently, trust in 'persistent press reports' isn't what it used to be."
- Kevin Drum, "Even if complaints from us shrill liberal bloggers are dismissed, surely poll results like this should get the media pondering the question of whether they're doing a very good job of reporting what's really going on."
Posted by Zach Wendling at July 26, 2006 12:27 PM
“That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” the Bush aide told the journalist. “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 study what we do.”
-From Ron Suskind's New York Times Magazine article called “Without a Doubt.”
Posted by: JohnS at July 28, 2006 12:56 PM | permalink
i have a gut feeling, and it isn't debatable, that history will not be too kind to this president. oh, and sweden doesn't have an army.
i am always amazed at how people of faith manage to warp reality to accomplish their goals in His name, especially when it contradicts His teachings.
i often ask myself when i see examples: does s/he really believe that statement or are they really charlatans, out to improve their personal well being?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2006 01:55 PM | permalink
i have a gut feeling, and it isn't debatable, that history will not be too kind to this president.
Very similar things were said about Lincoln in his day. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Eric Seymour at July 28, 2006 03:15 PM | permalink
the "gut feeling" and "isn't debateable" comment were jokes referencing the president's own words which were cited in the article johns provided.
i very much hope i am proven wrong on my comment regarding president bush, especially since i supported him.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2006 03:48 PM | permalink
I'm curious...
Do you ever get severe nausea and abdominal pain when you compare George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln?
I sure do when other people do it.
Lincoln was disliked because he fought AGAINST prejudice and strived to bring the United States back together in our worst time. He wasn't perfect, but he was the greatest president we've had and one of the greatest leaders the world has ever had.
Bush is disliked because he has fought FOR prejudice and has fostered discord and division amongst the people of the United States. He has fought for the priveledged over the poor and the opressors over the opressed. Nearly every decision he has made in his middle east policy (the greatest test of our time) has been wrong. So far it is pretty hard to find any successes in his nearly 6 years of jaw-dropping, extraordinary failures. Obviously history exists to be revised, but unless astonishing changes rapidly occur, he will likely be viewed as the worst president we've had.
Posted by: BE at July 28, 2006 09:17 PM | permalink
the "gut feeling" and "isn't debateable" comment were jokes referencing the president's own words which were cited in the article johns provided.
Umm...OK. Well, Jon Stewart has nothing to fear from you. ;-) And, BTW, the quote JohnS provided was from a Bush aide, not the President himself.
Posted by: Eric Seymour at July 29, 2006 09:54 AM | permalink
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014835.php
Posted by: Josiah at July 30, 2006 05:31 PM | permalink
BE,
Were not the people of Afganistan and Iraq both poor and oppressed and were not the Taliban and Hussein the oppressors?
Posted by: Matt at July 31, 2006 02:11 AM | permalink
Good point Eric, not the President's words, but an assistant. I was just trying to make light of the statements.
I think Colbert is better than Stewart.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2006 08:05 AM | permalink
Bush is disliked because he has fought FOR prejudice and has fostered discord and division amongst the people of the United States. He has fought for the priveledged over the poor and the opressors over the opressed.
Maybe this is one of those situations where most people did not take a comment seriously enough to respond to it. I'm sure it simplifies everything to look at policy positions as nothing but a choice of sides between the "privileged" and the poor, but people often (and should) consider things such as justice and the effects of their decisions on the economy, instead of just deciding who they like and making decisions on that basis. Also, you say that Bush has fought for prejudice, as Lincoln opposed it. In this context, it seems almost certain that you are accusing Bush of promoting a kind of prejudice like that which Lincoln opposed, which would be a serious error. However, because there are many forms and definitions of prejudice, I should ask what kind of prejudice you are talking (writing) about, and on what basis you accuse Bush of fighting for it. Finally, who are the oppressors who Bush has supported? Who are the oppressed who he has fought?
Posted by: Karl at August 1, 2006 12:36 PM | permalink
Post a comment