From the files of the obvious – now statistically proven: Bush supporters haven’t a clue on reality (well then neither does the non-reality based president)

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.

Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.

Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues.

See the entire report and poll results here.

EVERYBODY is talking about my man Jon Stewart lambasting Crossfire and number one idiot Tucker Carlson on Thursday. Alas I did not see it. Send links to any bootleg video if you have it. Here's Salon's take on it

"I think you're a lot more fun on your show," said Tucker Carlson to "Crossfire" guest Jon Stewart this afternoon. "And I think you're as much of a dick on your show as on any other," Stewart shot back. It wasn't the faux avuncularity we've come to expect from Stewart on "The Daily Show" but there, of course, he's playing a role. Here he was himself -- and he wasn't buying any of it.

From the moment Stewart sat down he made no secret of how repugnant he found the show. In fact, he said to Carlson and co-host Paul Begala that he had been so hard on the show he felt it was his duty to come on and say to their faces what he has said to friends and in interviews. What he said was that their show was "hurting America," and he was being only slightly hyperbolic. Stewart told them that when America needed journalists to be journalists they had instead chosen to present theater.

Carlson, trying to affect an air of dry amusement that a comedian would presume to lecture him, important pundit that he is, but looking as if his bow-tie were about to start spinning, could barely contain his outrage. In an absolutely mind-boggling moment, Carlson tried to counter Stewart's criticism by pointing out that during John Kerry's recent appearance on "The Daily Show," Stewart asked the candidate softball questions. "If you want to measure yourself against a comedy show," Stewart said, "be my guest."

Paul Begala tried to put a more conciliatory face on things by pointing out that theirs was a "debate" show. Stewart was having none of it. "I would love to see a real debate show," he said. And went on to tell them that instead of holding politicians' feet to the fire by asking tough question, "you're part of their strategy. You're partisan -- what's the word? -- uh, hacks."

It's almost a cliche by now to talk about "The Daily Show" being more trusted than real newscasts, but Stewart showed why. He pointed out to Carlson that he had asked Kerry if he really were in Cambodia but "I don't care," and when Carlson asked him what he thought about the "Bill O'Reilly vibrator flap," Stewart said, "I don't." It was as concise a demonstration of the triviality of the media as you could hope for.

"I thought you were going to be funny," Carlson said toward the end of the interview. Stewart responded, "No, I'm not going to be your monkey." And that was what was so bracing.

Stewart's "Crossfire" appearance is going to generate talk about how prickly he was, how he wasn't "nice" like he is on "The Daily Show." But prickliness is just what was needed. If you've built your reputation as a satirist pointing out how the media falls down on the job, you're not going to make yourself a part of their charade.

I've heard people talk about "The Daily Show" as an oasis of sanity, a public service. I couldn't agree more. Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" was another public service. He went on and acted as if the show's purpose really was to confront tough issues, instead of being the political equivalent of pro wrestling. Given a chance to say absolutely what he thought, Stewart took it. He accomplished what almost never happens on television anymore: He made the dots come alive.

Update: There it is. See the video. And Tucker, you really are a dick. Jon got some more shots in tonight. Link will follow when it's available. It's hilarious though to see Tucker playing Dan Quayle to Jon's Murphy Brown. A true idiot.

Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign desk is wondering as I have what's going with half-hearted inconsistent fact checking of the presidential candidates' statements. But Campaign Desk apparently was more heartened by media outlet's attempts at this in he first place

It was not so long ago that Campaign Desk was encouraged (for the most part) by the late but welcome eruption of fact-checking efforts launched by networks and newspapers alike after Labor Day. With November 2 nigh upon us, surely the candidates will continue to spin -- more and more furiously -- and surely viewers and readers will need more than ever for the press to "truth-squad" this spin. At a minimum, campaign reporters need to keep pounding on the same few inaccuracies that have been previously debunked but that keep popping up in almost every stump speech.

Alas, as Pandagon's Jesse Taylor noted yesterday, that isn't happening.

Yesterday afternoon, as Taylor reports, CNN's Judy Woodruff let a golden oldie, Bush's claim that Kerry has voted to raise taxes "98 times," fly by unchallenged on her show -- twice, actually.

...

And, why should the fact-checking stop once the debates have come and gone? To our mind, the press should not stop fact-checking candidates until the candidates stop spinning (as in, never).

...

Here's hoping that fact-checking does not die as fast as it was born, a gimmick dragged out for post-debate analysis and then forgotten for another four years.

But that's just it. As I wrote yesterday, it was a gimmick. Since when is the media interested in policy questions and their accuracy? Sorry CJR, but you probably knew this anyway. But I gave up a while ago hoping the media would redeem itself. You'll probably give up soon too.

Some random thoughts before I take a vacation from posting until just after the election. I've noticed the trend through the three presidential debates of some of the major media news outlets to feature segments assessing the accuracy of statements made during the debate. It's great idea that shouldn't even draw any attentions since news organization's should be doing that anyway. But this trend has predictably gone the way of so much of media reporting today -- lazy and useless for viewers/listeners. The formula has become simply to take a statement and say "candidate A said x. Really this is not true." And the story ends there. No further context, explanation, or policy implications. NPR was doing there version of this after the second debate commenting on John Kerry's assertion that 95% of the cargo containers that enter ports in the U.S. are uninspected. The story called this inaccurate, citing the fact that customs looks at cargo manifests and then inspects a subset that may contain high-risk items or seem suspicious. How is this any better? Will a terrorist put a nuclear weapon in a shipping crate and carefully mark the manifest "10 kiloton nuclear device"? The point of the story was not to put the statement in context but for the news organization to be able to pat itself on the back and say "see we're not just concerned with style." I'm not impressed. And NPR, which is usually head and shoulders above most news organizations in responsible reporting is not the only guilty party.

The October surprise will be the capture or killing not of Osama Bin Laden but Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Any day now. This will lead to my prediction of a decisive win by Bush. Put your money down now.

Lots of accusations are flowing about concerning corruption in the UN Oil for Food program. When I return, I'll sort out fact from fiction.

Finally, what's going on with Iran's nuclear program? Russia is finished with the nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Good thing President Bush is so engaged on this issue. I'll look at this in detail when I return.

Again I feel it is my obligation to remind you (because it makes me feel smart) that this analyst predicted well before the war that it was a good bet that Saddam had destroyed his stockpiles of WMD but miscalculated this administrations desire to go to war no matter what. So let's learn a lesson from Charles Duelfer's report. What was Saddam thinking?

Saddam Hussein hid behind ambiguities and evasions about whether Iraq possessed unconventional weapons - when in fact it had none - partly as a deterrent to Iran, according to a report by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq.

The former Iraqi leader never discussed deception as a policy and did not adopt a formal written directive outlining his orders, the report said. But privately he told aides, like Ali Hasan al-Majid, a close adviser, that "the better part of war is deceiving,'' the report said. Mr. Majid said Mr. Hussein "wanted to avoid appearing weak and did not reveal he was deceiving the world about the presence of W.M.D.,'' or weapons of mass destruction.

...

The report provided the first detailed examination of Mr. Hussein's thinking about unconventional weapons and offered an answer to one of the most enduring mysteries of the war in Iraq: why did Mr. Hussein risk so much to hide the truth that Iraq did not possess such weapons?

Overall, Mr. Hussein's strategic actions were aimed at one overriding objective, "the survival of himself, his regime and his legacy,'' the report concluded.

The report found that Mr. Hussein purposely communicated an ambiguous impression about whether Iraq possessed these weapons mainly as a deterrent to Iran, Baghdad's longstanding adversary, which fought a brutal war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988.

Are you telling me no analysts were seriously tossing this idea around before the war? If you guys need advice in the future, you know where to come.

The LA Times picks up on the renewed North Korea debate today. The analysts quoted (including my former boss) are unanimous in their agreement with me that President Bush has no idea what he's talking about.

Kerry declared Thursday that he would return to Clinton's approach, which Bush and many conservative foreign policy advocates say didn't work.

However, other analysts contend that things have only become worse under Bush's approach. Experts also questioned Bush's claim that direct talks would undermine the six-party negotiations.

...

However, several arms control specialists interviewed Friday argued that direct contact between Washington and Pyongyang had become essential.

Charles L. Pritchard, a former U.S. special envoy to North Korea for both Bush and Clinton, said he agreed with Kerry on the importance of holding both bilateral and multilateral talks at the same time. By doing so, the United States would have a better chance of finding out what kind of deals would appeal to the North Koreans and of using international influence to see that they bear fruit, he said.

"The path that the president's been on has resulted in North Korea's reprocessing spent fueled rods, extracting plutonium and probably making another six nuclear weapons, bringing their total probably to eight," he said. "By itself, the six-party talks will not work."

Nonproliferation expert Potter acknowledged that direct contacts offered no guarantee of success, but said he still leaned toward Kerry's formula.

"It's unsure they will get us very far, but we have to exhaust all channels available to us," he said. "I don't think we've invested what is needed to bring them to the table."

The zinger

The reemergence of North Korea as an issue in the presidential campaign could give new prominence to an issue that appeared to be difficult for Bush, said Eric Heginbotham of the Council on Foreign Relations. Although Bush defined nuclear nonproliferation as the No. 1 security priority, the North Koreans managed to make progress in building their arsenal during his presidency, Heginbotham said.

"This is pretty tough for him to answer in the campaign."

Bush’s nonsensical position on North Korea. During last night’s debate John Kerry emphatically said that he’d meet North Korea more than half way by engaging in bilateral negotiations over not just that country’s nuclear program, but a range of other issues as well. President Bush would have done well to just ignore this issue altogether (although no one today is really talking about the substance of the debate anyway – body language baby!). This response makes no sense

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.
You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?

BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.

So let me get this straight. Kim Jong Il wants something that will further the process toward disarming his country. Kerry says he’s for that. Bush says: If we do that that will solve the problem; then where will be? It’s as if he’s holding on to six-party talks as some sort of badge of multilateralism. Who cares if they are unproductive? If we act bilaterally we won’t be acting multilaterally. If we solve the problem we won’t have a problem.

The president continued he bizarre logic

BUSH: Again, I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to get rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that.

BUSH: We must have China's leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves.
And if you enter bilateral talks, they'll be happy to walk away from the table. I don't think that'll work.

Here Bush equates six-party talks with Chinese diplomacy. No six-party talks, then China ceases to exist as a country. And again Bush seems to confuse engagement with appeasement. He seems to forget that on his watch North Korea has enlarged its nuclear arsenal. And China is acutely concerned about this. The notion that if the U.S. takes the lead in disarming North Korea, China will become disinterested and unhelpful is absurd. China wants a nuclear free Korean peninsula as much as the United States. This is a simple issue to understand but Bush fumbles it badly. Kerry nails him on this

KERRY: Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea.

Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true.

We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: You know my opinion on North Korea. I can't say it any more plainly.

No you can’t say it more plainly Mr. President. And it’s plainly clear that you don’t what you’re talking about.