MEDIA AND CULTURE  
Miller-McCune.com / By Emily Badger
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 274

Many Still Believe That Saddam Hussein Was Behind 9/11, and Now We Have Some Idea Why

Researchers looking at beliefs about al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have made some surprising discoveries about why peopl
November 4, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

President Obama has had a hard time dislodging misperceptions about his health care proposal — those stubborn beliefs that there are death panels and free care for illegal aliens that don't actually exist in the legislation. Recent research about the way people defend their faith in false information, though, suggests calling out the inaccuracies may not be all that effective in converting the suspicious.

Sociologists at the University of North Carolina and Northwestern University examined an earlier case of deep commitment to the inaccurate: the belief, among many conservatives who voted for George W. Bush in 2004, that Saddam Hussein was at least partly responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

Of 49 people included in the study who believed in such a connection, only one shed the certainty when presented with prevailing evidence that it wasn't true.

The rest came up with an array of justifications for ignoring, discounting or simply disagreeing with contrary evidence — even when it came from President Bush himself.

"I was surprised at the diversity of it, what I kind of charitably call the creativity of it," said Steve Hoffman, one of the study's authors and now a visiting assistant professor at the State University of New York, Buffalo.

The voters weren't dupes of an elaborate misinformation campaign, the researchers concluded; rather, they were actively engaged in reasoning that the belief they already held was true.

This type of "motivated reasoning" — pursuing information that confirms what we already think and discarding the rest — helps explain why viewers gravitate toward partisan cable news and why we tend to see what we want in The Colbert Report. But when it comes to justifying demonstrably false beliefs, the logic stretches even thinner.

By the time the interviews were conducted, just before the 2004 election, the Bush Administration was no longer muddling a link between al-Qaeda and the Iraq war. The researchers chose the topic because, unlike other questions in politics, it had a correct answer.

Subjects were presented during one-on-one interviews with a newspaper clip of this Bush quote: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda."

The Sept. 11 Commission, too, found no such link, the subjects were told.

"Well, I bet they say that the commission didn't have any proof of it," one subject responded, "but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that."

Reasoned another: "Saddam, I can't judge if he did what he's being accused of, but if Bush thinks he did it, then he did it."

Others declined to engage the information at all. Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?

The desire to believe this was more powerful, according to the researchers, than any active campaign to plant the idea.

Such a campaign did exist in the run-up to the war, just as it exists today in the health care debate.

"I do think there's something to be said about people like Sarah Palin, and even more so Chuck Grassley, supporting this idea of death panels in a national forum," Hoffman said.

He won't credit them alone for the phenomenon, though.

"That kind of puts the idea out there, but what people then do with the idea ... " he said. "Our argument is that people aren't just empty vessels. You don't just sort of open up their brains and dump false information in and they regurgitate it. They're actually active processing cognitive agents."

That view is more nuanced than the one held by many health care reform proponents — that citizens are only ill-informed because Rush Limbaugh makes them so. (For the record, the authors say justifying false beliefs extends equally to liberals, who they hypothesize would behave similarly given a different set of issues.)

The alternate explanation raises queasy questions for the rest of society.

"I think we'd all like to believe that when people come across disconfirming evidence, what they tend to do is to update their opinions," said Andrew Perrin, an associate professor at UNC and another author of the study.

That some people might not do that even in the face of accurate information, the authors suggest in their article, presents "a serious challenge to democratic theory and practice."

"The implications for how democracy works are quite profound, there's no question in my mind about that," Perrin said. "What it means is that we have to think about the emotional states in which citizens find themselves that then lead them to reason and deliberate in particular ways."

Evidence suggests people are more likely to pay attention to facts within certain emotional states and social situations. Some may never change their minds. For others, policy-makers could better identify those states, for example minimizing the fear that often clouds a person's ability to assess facts and that has characterized the current health care debate.

Hoffman's advice for crafting such an environment: "The congressional town hall meetings, that is a sort of test case in how not to do it."

Emily Badger is a freelance writer living in the Washington, D.C. area who has contributed to The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and Christian Science Monitor.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: al qaeda, saddam hussein, belief

comments COMMENTS ( 274 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Brain Dead
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 4, 2009 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conclusion: People are butt-ass stupid sometimes.

It's not just Saddam/9-11 and the health-care debate. Climate change also has many conservative skeptics, despite the SCIENCE that says that climate change is accelerating at a rate much faster than even scientists' previous worst-case scenarios.

I think I read that only about 1/3 (!) of Americans believe that climate change is real and is human-caused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: saucerattack
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: richholland
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: yusandnick
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: PeterW
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: deang

Comments are closed-

Ill will
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Julian on Nov 5, 2009 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This kind of stupidity is driven by ill will, and ill will is culpable. There is no excuse for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Identity Crisis Posted by: folkie
» RE: Identity Crisis Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Identity Crisis Posted by: madregal
» Ill will? Or ill culture? Posted by: grailsnail

Comments are closed-

curiouser and curiouser
[Report this comment]
Posted by: yusandnick on Nov 5, 2009 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?"

Most curious to me is why the researchers found this curious. This type of fallacious reasoning is basic human nature.

"For the record, the authors say justifying false beliefs extends equally to liberals"

As anyone who reads AlterNet already knows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

My right-wing aunt...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: adp3d on Nov 5, 2009 2:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..called my mother(her sister) the other day claiming that Obama-care had just raised her health insurance rates. My moderately liberal mom replied, "Obama-care didn't raise your rates, the insurance company raised your rates...".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My right-wing aunt... Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: My right-wing aunt... Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair
» RE: Hey I'm an unlicensed plumber Posted by: abbadon2007

Comments are closed-

The dumb progs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Perry Logan on Nov 5, 2009 2:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressives do this, too.

Example: many progs say Hillary Clinton is a corporate Democrat or a "corporate shill," despite the fact that she receives sky-high ratings from progressive organizations.

It's simple logic: if Hillary were a corporate Democrat, these organizations would know.

I have conveyed this information to progressives on countless occasions, but it makes no dent. These folks have made up their mind, and evidence will have no effect.

Similarly, many lefties continue to repeat right-wing smears against the Clintons as fact. It doesn't matter how much information you give them.

Note that these irrational progressives are the ones who got snookered by Obama. They hang out at Democratic Underground and Huffington Post. They're the dumb progressives.

Hating ACORN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They're the dumb progressives. Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: SufiLizard
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: johnthetreehugger
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: Quicksilver
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: Alan8
» Try it yourself, Alan8 Posted by: Quicksilver
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: Dboy
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: Quicksilver
» An unlicensed plumber Posted by: Hiroak

Comments are closed-

Ah, but who planted the seed?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: karinkdf82 on Nov 5, 2009 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who planted the seed? Certainly there is truth here, except you fail to mention that these people didn't come up with the Sadam/Bin Laden link on their own... so it isn't a case of President Bush reinforcing a belief that they already held. He planted the seed... and watered it religiously. It takes a special sort of person to contradict damning evidence. I tend to disagree that liberals are as prone to brainwashing, as you say. They all too often demand recorded facts... sources, sources, and more sources. Nor are they unwilling to change their minds once the facts are laid out in full view. Conservatives aren't necessarily immune to facts either. As I said, it takes a special sort. Was the study conducted at a teabag party, perchance?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We all know who planted the seed! Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

the military and media don't help
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jiclemens on Nov 5, 2009 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The news for the past 8 years has been peppered with interviews of enlisted men who stated, wherever they were in the Middle East that they were there to avenge 9/11. The military disinformation campaign is a well organized process that has been especially notable since Viet Nam. The difference between wars of the past and now is whether or not the media actively seeks the truth or takes the lazy path by parroting the disinformation. I have no doubt that most of the enlisted men went in for the reasons they state, but not one has been shown admitting they were lied to and the mission had nothing to do with 9/11.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» media don't help, but... Posted by: Tim Brown
» RE: media don't help, but... Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: media don't help, but... Posted by: aussidawg

Comments are closed-

reinventing Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Nov 5, 2009 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was decades ago that Leon Festinger came up with a fancy term for the fact that many people don't like to change their minds. And the more they are invested in an idea, the more they will cling to it and dismiss evidence to the contrary.

Smokers, he found, did not believe the link between smoking and lung cancer. The more they smoked, the greater their disbelief in the evidence.

Are they still selling those kitchen plaques that say "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Too fucking stupid
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rugger on Nov 5, 2009 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tragedy is, these people are allowed to vote and walk among us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too fucking stupid Posted by: Balanchine
» RE: Too fucking stupid Posted by: grailsnail

Comments are closed-

I wonder how this effect tracks over time
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SufiLizard on Nov 5, 2009 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure this sort of thing has always been with us, but I have to wonder if it's become more prevalent now, than say 50 or 60 years ago.

And if it fluctuates, how can we work to minimize it?

If it's relatively stable, how do we work around it? Clearly public opinion changes over time, if facts and evidence don't do much to change opinions what does?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Contrasting Right and Left.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 5, 2009 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do both sides call people names? Uh-huh.

Do we get angry because our core values are violated by our opponents? Yup.

Are we unswerving in our beliefs? You bet.

There are many important differences, however, in what both sides take arms against. The Left rails about actions, statements and events that the Right freely engages in, puts out and is proud of. The Right, as can be shown by the examples put forth in this article, is targeted by its leadership to believe in myths. The Far Right is the sub-party of the persistent ignorant inside the party of greed.

Where is the leadership of the Left standing up and grandstanding ridiculous lies about Right Wing candidates and officials? What do we use but their own words and actions when we hold them up to scrutiny? Do we look for their birth certificates? Are we damning them for thirty-year-old personal associations?

The author of this piece states, "according to the authors, justifying false beliefs extends equally to liberals, who they hypothesize would behave similarly given a different set of issues."

A different set of issues? We don't all rail around the same issues? During the Bush administration, what are the examples of the persistent lies told and believed about Bush, Cheney and the rest of the authors of the wars, Katrina, disastrous tax maneuverings, the wreck of the Constitution, the US PATRIOT ACT, disasters to numerous to list? Not what we protested against--WHAT DID WE LIE ABOUT? WHAT FACTS WERE NOT IN EVIDENCE? WHERE DID WE PERSIST IN BELIEFS THAT WERE BASED ON LIES?

I'll certainly entertain examples, from this author, the authors of the study, or from anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Contrasting Right and Left. Posted by: Jeff Greef
» RE: Contrasting Right and Left. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Contrasting Right and Left. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Contrasting Right and Left. Posted by: Longdream

Comments are closed-

Crocodile Tears Over Murder
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Nov 5, 2009 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only a naive person would believe that the 9/11 bombing surprised American intelligence. They looked the other way while the Saudi kings put the well orchestrated attack together. Trillions were made and a new foreign policy created. The loss of 3 thousand Civilians and two tall buildings was a cheap price to pay. Crocodile tears disguised the guilt of those that slept while innocent people were murdered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: weathered
» RE: Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Caesar777
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Caesar77 on Nov 5, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My, oh my, the Japanese missed a great opportunity when they attacked Pearl Harbor. They should have blamed it on Irish Leprechauns.
Dumb assholes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

headline -- more than this article delivers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davidcay on Nov 5, 2009 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article promises to explain some of the reasons that people cling to demonstrably false beliefs, but instead describes this troubling reality without explaining the underlying psychological mechanisms.

If the study authors do not know then the writer should say so and tell what, if anything, they are doing to develop answers through research.
If the study authors do know or have theories then the readers were shortchanged, their time wasted.

More -- and better -- reporting, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Try Reading This Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair

Comments are closed-

Faith vs. Reality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Handyman on Nov 5, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article states that the researchers "hypothesize" that liberals would behave similarly. Apparently they did not test this hypothesis, and I believe they would have discovered a much lesser degree of "fantasy persistence" in liberals/progressives than in conservatives.
It's about a difference in mind-set. Progressives tend to be "reality-based"; while conservatives are more "faith-based".
This helps explain why scientific and academic fields tend to include many more progressive individuals than conservative ones. And, though I'm not necessarily referring to religion with the term "faith-based", it also helps explain why conservatives are more susceptible to superstition, mythology, and religion. They tend to place more importance on what they WISH their world to be like, and what they BELIEVE it to be like, than on the actual reality of it.
Facts and evidence mean measurably less to conservatives than do the pre-existing beliefs held in their squirming, reptilian brains!

As David Popper, in The End of Reason, writes: "By definition, religion requires faith; and faith renounces evidence. Taking a proposition “on faith” means to consciously and willfully refuse to examine the facts. There is a word for this type of thinking: Superstition - a belief which is not based on human reason or scientific knowledge."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Faith vs. Reality Posted by: jdonovan
» RE: David Popper is full of it Posted by: humanrevolution

Comments are closed-

Where did they find all these stupid RESEARCHERS?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 5, 2009 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Others declined to engage the information at all. Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?"

Of course, people who can think don't find this curious at all; they didn't need to do a study to realize the source of this sort of opinion. In the presence of lies, facts and assertions are inconsistent. In the presence of inconsistent facts and assertions, people don't actually know what the truth is; they assume the existence of facts beyond their knowledge. They form theories, conspiracy theories if you will, that take the facts that don't make sense and make sense out of them by providing the missing pieces of the picture. If you believe that GWB was a faithful president defending his nation against terrorists in the wake of 9/11, of course you believe that he invaded Iraq because SH was behind the attacks. You believe it for the same reason other people believe that GWB was somehow involved in making the 9/11 attacks a success: it makes more sense than the official story. You guys couldn't figure this out?

This is, of course, one of the basic lessons of effective propaganda: graphic demonstrations that evoke visceral reactions provide the mind with powerful lessons that take precedence over mere words. You can't deny the pictures of Abu Ghraib, but you can imagine that our victims there deserved their treatment. By treating Jews as subhuman monsters worthy of extermination, the nazis made the popular case that they were just that. Our treatment of terrorist suspects is designed to place a similar vision of our enemies in our minds. And the invasion of Iraq proved SH's guilt for 9/11.

Once upon a time we had journalists who cared whether the reports they were bringing their viewers and readers made sense or not. After Tet, Westmoreland couldn't understand why everyone couldn't just go on repeating his lies like before; but they no longer made sense; there was obviously falsehood in them. He would have had no problem with today's press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Nothing New
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Terrible on Nov 5, 2009 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true."
Julius Caesar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Indict Silverstein
[Report this comment]
Posted by: weathered on Nov 5, 2009 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for insurance fraud and murder at the WTC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Whats missing?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ismac76 on Nov 5, 2009 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The missing piece is that we do not teach critical thinking skills as a science in schools, at least during the elementary and secondary schooling phase. As a society there is no shortage of people demonstrating and ultimately modeling what having a**hole opinions looks like and sounds like and the shameful media pretends that they know no better than to pretend that this in some way is what democracy or civil discourse amounts to. Conveniently, this turns people off so they ignore the brutal idiocy that goes on everyday in the carrying out of political governance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whats missing? Posted by: aussidawg

Comments are closed-

Reagan said it - "Facts are pesky things"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wiscorad on Nov 5, 2009 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fact 1-Military grade nanothermite found in debris of WTC.
Fact 2 - No bodies, boarding passes or any other evidence supporting presence of 19 hijackers on planes.
Fact 3 - WTC 7 was not hit by any planes.
Fact 4 - Mossad agents occupied WTC and had access to the buildings in advance of 9-11
Fact 5 - Shock waves from explosions recorded before planes hit.
Fact 6 - Larry Silverstein, WTC owner, took out insurance 6 weeks before attacks that specifically covered "terrorist attacks".
Fact 7 - Dick Cheney issued "stand down " order on interception of "plane" that was to hit Pentagon
Fact 8 - The 19 "hijackers" lived across the street from NSA facility before the attacks.
Fact 9 - George Bush's brother owned the security company that handled WTC.
Fact 10 - Invasion of Iraq planned long before 9-11
Fact 11 - Rumsfeld referred to Shanksville "plane", in a press conference, as the plane that was "shot down".
Fact 12 - Government will not release video of any plane hitting Pentagon
Fact 13 - FBI was on scene minutes after Pentagon was hit and confiscated all video from surrounding venues.
Fact 14 - Military experts on scene at Pentagon describe the odor of cordite - they are trained to recognize the smell.
Fact 15 - WTC was designed to withstand impact of commercial airliners.

Definition of "conspiracy": A secret agreement between 2 or more people to commit an illegal act.
Hitler had it right when he promoted the idea that if you repeat a big enough lie often enough, the public will believe it.
God rest the souls of the 3,000 victims who died at the hands of their own government for purposes of starting a war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Military grade nanothermite in dust Posted by: kellysgarden
» You defective little lymphnode Posted by: weathered
» Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: weathered
» RE: liar Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: liar Posted by: EncinoM
» Hi Weathered Posted by: EncinoM
» Hi Filipe. Posted by: GuitarBill
» NOT down the Hudson River Posted by: weathered
» Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: weathered
» As Paul O'Neil Posted by: weathered
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» You are double so nasty Posted by: MaxBridges
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» See "Max", I'm a sweetheart. Posted by: GuitarBill
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Yeah, that's me, an infidel %^) Posted by: GuitarBill
» Nice try Posted by: weathered
» Good point, EncinoM. Thank you. Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

Interesting but it goes deeper than this...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jgrossnas on Nov 5, 2009 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of good points in the article but there's more reasons why people cling to false beliefs.

In the example of the Iraq war, a majority of Americans believed that it was indeed necessary to fight Saddam because the Bush administration presented a convincing-enough argument for them. Congress went along with it mostly too (though many other major countries were rightly skeptical).

When it turned out there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction or a 9-11 link, war supporters had a problem- if you admit that the whole thing was a boondoggle then don't you also admit that you were a fool for supporting such a thing? Some people could shallow the painful truth and admit that they were fooled and supported a war that they shouldn't have, making them look stupid. Others though didn't want to admit it because 1) some would always support Bush and/or the GOP, 2) they don't want to admit that America got involved in the wrong war again, 3) they don't want to admit that they helped send troops to their death or injury for the wrong reasons.

Bush had a knack for doing low-key mea culpa's without totally admitting anything wrong. Someone like Palin is much worse because she spreads total falsehoods about herself and various policies with no regrets at all. So far, that's served her well because some people like a leader who acts certain but sooner or later, the lies can catch up with you (as they did towards the end of McCain's campaign).

I think that people like Limbaugh and Beck can constantly get away with spreading falsehoods because their audience is largely uncritical- they don't care about processing the information differently than the way that it's presented to them. Unfortunately because they've managed to cultivate a large audience who feed off their anger, both of them are further enabled to do more and more damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If Israel didn't help engineer 9/11
[Report this comment]
Posted by: weathered on Nov 5, 2009 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they sure as hell were the cause of it.

Indict Silverstein for insurance fraud and murder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Rational Thinking
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 5, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even people who think rationally must start their reasoning with fundamental notions that they believe are rock-solid. Clearly these root beliefs are different for different people, and just as clearly, two people who reason based on totally different facts are quite apt to each conclude that the other is irrational or crazy.

John Dean wrote a book, Conservatives Without Conscience, which was devoted largely to a group of people called authoritarians. These people take as their root belief that their leaders are the ultimate authority, that what these people say is correct and not to be questioned. Interestingly, authoritarians are found everywhere in the world, but they are always conservatives. Maybe that is not so surprising, though it may be hard to get our minds around the idea that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck can be the authorities that so many follow blindly, but once that hurdle is passed, it is not hard to understand why others think them irrational.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ational Thinking Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

PerhapsThis is Why 911 is Dimissed Out O Hand
[Report this comment]
Posted by: edgar_michel on Nov 5, 2009 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That suggests that even the wrters for National Geographic, who refused to look at the evidence of the anomalies of the Official account of 911, refused to do so because they formed their opinions of 911 during a very emotional period and now cannot bring thmesleves to take an objective look at the preponderance of evidence. Perhaps it is that when opinions are formed during a very emotional state, there is pain involved in letting go of those emotionally formed opinions when new evidence contradicts those so formed opinions and the mind just looks for any avenue of escape.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Scientific American too Posted by: weathered
» RE: Scientific American too, bummer Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Mountains of disinformation Posted by: MaxBridges
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.

Comments are closed-

makes sense
[Report this comment]
Posted by: riffraff2001 on Nov 5, 2009 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are committed to keeping their opinions because otherwise they have to admit they were wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong, so they convince themselves that there is no possibility that they were wrong. The worst emotion you can experience or see in someone else is when denial is no longer an option and they are forced to realize that they have been wrong all along. It's really sad but completely understandable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: makes sense Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Look at the history of science Posted by: suprmark

Comments are closed-

great - now the 9/11 "truthers" crawls out of their holes to prove the point
[Report this comment]
Posted by: counterpoint on Nov 5, 2009 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The so called "truthers'" approach ties in nicely with the psychological mechanisms discussed in the article. The conspiracist authors usually employ cherry picking and anomaly hunting, bombarding people with supposedly 'unexplained' "facts" to create the impression of great evil.

I spent several months last year examining those "facts" - they all fall apart, and most importantly even if they didn't they wouldn't provide a coherent theory.

Having met several hard core truthers I can attest that the psychological need expressed by them is all too obvious, even where it started with a rational (and I would say: commendable) doubt and curiosity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» nice deflection douche bag Posted by: weathered
» Thank you, counterpoint. Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

Chilling
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lesserauk on Nov 5, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so chilling to hear a comment that accepts this as true simply because Bush invaded Iraq. The idea that we would blindly follow and accept things as true is very troublesome. Parents who have seen children die in Iraq would justifiably be in denial that the war is based entirely on a lie. But there has been ample evidence that we shouldn't put our unconditional trust in an elected official just because we voted for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Missing the point Posted by: leafsong1
» Off-topic and way too crazy Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

Difference between facts and beliefs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Casey Burns on Nov 5, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I occasionally dabble in some paleontology as a highly trained amateur, and have had the opportunity of working and publishing with some of the best scientists on the planet. For me it was a learning experience in terms of the difference between scientific reasoning and belief systems.

I asked one what he says in response to people asking him if he "believes in evolution". His response was elegant "I don't believe in evolution. I observe it and measure it."

Working with the scientists I learned to discriminate the fine line between wild hypothesis and fact/truth. In terms of what we could say in print - it could only be based on fact, not on wild ideas and beliefs. And other scientists looked at, and checked our work. When they disagreed with us, we couldn't just brush it off - we had to answer their disagreements and in many cases they were correct. This is known as peer review.

This was initially frustrating to me as I had to give up some long-held beliefs which I had long wanted in print. But then once I let go, a deeper understanding resulted. More or less a Scientific Satori. Keeping those beliefs intact would have resulted in bad science!

A problem in our society is that few, especially the creationists, the global warming and peak oil deniers, and the healthcare teabaggers, don't have a clue that they are working on belief systems, and then assume everyone else does, especially the scientists. I suspect many are brought up in or associate with a church-based culture where beliefs in god and heaven are paramount - and this conditions them to think this way. These are my hypotheses - which remain to be tested.

This cultural imprint is impossible to overcome, which is why this mode of thinking persists and why the believers act in contrary to their own self interests.

It doesn't help that the sciences in the primary and secondary schools have been routed - or worse, infiltrated by the creationists who insist that Genesis be taught alongside with evolution. More emphasis on the scientific method - and emphasizing the difference between truth and belief - is needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A crisis of trust in information
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zoz on Nov 5, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The effects seen are really a testament to our lack of trust in our news organizations.

The researcher said that people wouldn't change their opinion even in the face of accurate information, but that is a biased statement. The research subject is not in a position to truly know that a given piece of information is factual.

This is why Fox news would have a tough time convincing me of anything. I just don't trust them. And conservatives don't trust media that they perceive as liberal.

In the absence of a single news source trusted by both sides, each will simply find ones to reinforce their own viewpoint. The average person will always be hard pressed to do the grunt work of researching the facts. We're all looking for a "trusted agent".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A True Story
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 5, 2009 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You may have already noticed that there is a "lie" in "beLIEve".
-

A true story: I had an argument with a Republican recently, but it wasn't an argument about politics.

The Republican insisted that the word "concave" meant bulging out, and "convex" meant curving in, the opposite of what the words really mean.
("ConCAVE has the word "cave" in it -- that's how you can remember these words' true meanings.)

Well, his Democrat wife and I tried and tried to set him straight, but he kept insisting the words were antonyms of what they really are.

Finally, I got a dictionary, and proved I was right. (Yay! I won an argument with a Republican, although it was not over politics.)

He accepted his defeat, to his credit. (He isn't a real loon, relative to most Republicans.) But he was saddened that he was wrong about something.

Boy, did he have reason to be sad, then in that case, given his political beliefs!

I don't know what my point for posting this is. I guess it is that, it IS possible to convert at least some of the more moderate Republicans to believing in the truth if you can provide irrefutable proof that their original beliefs are wrong,... at least in regards to non-political issues.
:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Oldjohn
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Oldjohn on Nov 5, 2009 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"No one has ever lost money underestimating the taste [intelligence] of the American People." I believe it was H. L. Mencken who said that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

dumb and dumberer
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eosrk on Nov 5, 2009 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the way I describe this...these fools still believe Saddam had something to do with it....and bad enough we had a administration stupid enough to believe it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I have been wodereing for many years whatever -----
[Report this comment]
Posted by: symcokid on Nov 5, 2009 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
happened to the Native Indian Trust Fund Monies and now the truth comes out Saddam Hussein took all of the money. No wonder Bush went to war against Iraq, to justify another wrong against the Indigenous People - what a man!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What does this say about our justice system?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jrmart on Nov 5, 2009 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This study would indicate that jury trials are a farce. Of 12 jurors one might expect to find at least one who will twist all testimony to fit his/her "perception" I also take issue that this is equally true of "liberals"
The very difference between liberal thinkers and right wing "conservatives" is what separates us from them.
This is a very disturbing report, for IF true (and the recent rhetoric, would seem to validate it) then the country is doomed A country divided cannot stand. One of most vicious wars in history was fought on that premise.
So long America, it was good to know ya!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I'm still trying to figure out how Osama bin-Forgotten & his 19 lackeys w/boxcutters defeated our
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 5, 2009 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
trillion-dollar defenses??? The "official story" sounds fishy too!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

BACK TO HAUNT US
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 5, 2009 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The invasion of Iraq was the biggest hoax ever put over on the American people. The Iraqis have paid the price. George Bush dreamed of invading Iraq long before he was president. 9/11 provided him with his sales pitch. He pitched his 'values' crap and people bought into it. I'll never know why. At the time of the invasion most Americans couldn't find Baghdad on the map. But they got behind their president. That's what I was told. As far as I could see Bush drew a line from point A to point B. Made it seem as though there were no other possibilities. Saddam Hussein was an easy sell, he was indeed a mean dictator. But at the time there were at least a dozen others around the world but they went on undisturbed. People seem to cling to a small part of what they believe to be true and over time it gets more and more real. The connection that Bush contrived will never completely go away. The refusal of our govenment to prosecute those responsible will make it possible for the story to remain "true" to many people. And so the lie will live on. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Right-Wing Authoritarians
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wmholt on Nov 5, 2009 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is research showing that right-wing authoritarians (RWA's) process information differently than other people.

Unlike the authors of this study, who simply *believe* that liberals would behave the same way given a different set of issues, these researchers found that RWA's are particularly susceptible to believing lies and becoming fearful, which is why Republicans use those political weapons so often.

Here is the research link:

The Authoritarians

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

W/out 9/11 we wouldn't be in Iraq/Afgn.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: weathered on Nov 5, 2009 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
W/out 9/11 there would be NO patriot/homeland insecurity, no break down of political process/representation.

None of this madness would have traction w/out MSM monster contorting anything that resembles a truth. Enjoy the fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What Israel hates most?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: weathered on Nov 5, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Getting caught in the headlights of their very own remarlable arrogance and diabolic deceit and having NO one elsde to manipulate blame onto.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Israel hates most? Posted by: weathered

Comments are closed-

believers, deniers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jareilly on Nov 5, 2009 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These credulous people, may be "active cognitive agents" or not. By any reasonable measure, they are frankly, stupid and lazy. They are also full of almost infinite resentment and grievance, which has no real target, so Saddam Hussein is as good as anybody. The problem with them, for the rest of us, is that they are not content to live amongst themselves, marinading in their corrosive and infantile worldview. In order to justify their inchoate "belief system", they must make continued and often violent attempts to inflict this voodoo on the rest of us.

If the South had not already been trying to spread slavery to the new territories (the reason, Texans fought Santa Ana at the Alamo), there would have been no real reason not to let them secede. Who really needed southern Alabama or rural South Carolina, anyway? But the Confederates, like their descendants mentioned in the article, would have fought the Civil War in every state as the country moved west. It would never have ended. Or at least not until the USA had exhausted itself in bloodshed. That apocalyptic ending would have been further justification for the "believers".

The only thing wrong with Sherman's March was not that it was destructive; it was that the March was not desctructive enough. The North should have kept large garrisons of federal troops in the South until the turn of the century and shot KKK members on sight. Instead, the North turned back to the business of making money by exploiting the land and the waves of impoverished immigrants arriving each year and let the KKK take over the South. This was just possibly the first example in history of a terrorist organization seizing political control of major territory through, murder, rape, torture, mutilation, property seizure and torture. Terrorists ever since have recieved great inspiration from the KKK. And hapless, debased drones like the survey subjects in the article have live whole, wasted lives, rationalizing the present outcome.

The South did rise again. And the world has been ass-deep in blood ever since.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Could It Be Outright Lies (Sophism) and Reflexive Subjective Propaganda?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nobyjingo on Nov 5, 2009 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be that outright lies (sophism) told by people in government authority mixed with subjective propaganda (told by people in government authority) with either no objective truth or only a minuscule shadow of objective truth, AND a conformed media echo-chamber with NO equivalent alternative government authority's continued contradictory voices in Local media or mainstream media has caused ONLY reflexive reactions from people as to why many people accept what was presented for years as truth by government authority figures???????

Lies and distortions by Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS when finally corrected, are without any fanfare whatsoever, and there is NO Local or mainstream media broadcasting the changes over and over and over again and again; therefore, the common people parrot back the original reflections in their minds of what was originally stated as truth and broadcast continually by government authority figures that the people want to trust, even though their lies and distortions have been reneged on and changed; the correction of the outright lies and distortions are given little attention, so as not to make an imprint, in order that what was originally purported as truth will remain the imprint and still seem feasible to be truth, as the original lies and distortions were given huge fanfare continually for days on end -- even months and years.

Outright lies (sophism) and subjective propaganda works well to lead the people of the Common MAJORITY against their best interest and it should be illegal to use such Hitleresque sophism and propaganda against the people of ones own nation, but apparently it isn't anymore, but it definitely should be; and once was illegal in the United States, after World War II and the Hitler Regime's use of sophism and propaganda; used not only against the world, but against the citizens of Germany itself to keep the people deceived as to what was actually happening to its citizens.

Since Hitleresque military style sophism and subjective/objective propaganda is now being and has been blatantly used in the United States against the people of the Common Majority, it is no wonder why lies and distortions are accepted as truth by many people; therefore, it is time to start up the Institute of Propaganda Analysis again, so that propagandists can be weeded out of the media, because it is not in the best interest of the people of a nation to have sophism and propaganda used against the best interest of the people of that nation's citizens.

Christian leaders need to rely on God to call Christians, and not choose to use propaganda as a greedy tool for filling church pews. No Christian leader should hold out for the government to allow the churches to use propaganda to fill the pews in the churches. Christian leaders that have to rely on propaganda should not be leaders in the churches at all.

When military style sophism (outright lies) and propaganda use by authority figures against the people of the United States is discontinued, the people will not be so ignorant as to reality, and such polls of ignorance will no longer be possible.

Is a propagandized patriot, a real patriot?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

YES !!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bepa on Nov 5, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This research is going at the essence of the problems of how to find the truth.

Very few trust the news media and there are so many conspiracy theories now on all sides.

We need reliable factual sources to use as a base to build our opinions from...and people who willfully lie should be exposed as liars.

(Did we ever have good sources? Or was the news always tainted with opinion?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

To be a conservative or Republican
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 5, 2009 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the US today after all that has happened during the Bush years you have to be stupid. It's actually a major part of the definition of "conservative". The survey mentioned in this article is simply another proof of that fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Worse than stupid: Orwellian Posted by: eddie torres

Comments are closed-

The endless looping of 9/11 footage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: keystone999 on Nov 5, 2009 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
created a highly emotional state in America. In fear and confusion - with MSM help, our leaders were able to chip away at our constitutional rights, lie to us and push us into war on 2 fronts. Similar lies were used to scare us into bailing out Wallstreet. No one makes good decisions in a state of fear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Eh, Congress wasn't interviewed either...and they swallowed the kool-aid
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Alex Hidell on Nov 5, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Sept 2001 and Oct 2002 AUMF's (authorizations for use of military force) all gave the President whatever powers he deemed necessary.

If there are any dumb hicks out there in the GOP just remember folks that there were plenty of dumber 'smart guys in the room' in congress willing to play along.

It's the Milgram Experiment, and they dumbed Congress down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

the unbelievable oughts
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tazdelaney on Nov 5, 2009 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in 1700BC egypt, a favored saying was 'if pharaoh's men say it; it isn't true;' though they probably didn't say it too loudly. 91.1% of everything gaseously emitted by the US government (or most governments, for that matter), are purest lies. while those of us who disbelieve the official story on 911 are held up to ridicule as 'paranoid conspiracy theorists' at large... as new yorkers, wife and i had a list of a dozen outpoints by that day's end. take for instance the fact that at 10:15, the NYC EPA found the air deadly toxic and wanted all persons warned to stay indoors, use anay kind of breath filter going out... at 11:30, federal EPA announced that, quote, "the air is safe." at 1:30, i went out and found the avenues a mournful, worried parade as far as the eye could see, walking right towards the crystalline plumes which plagued the city for weeks afterwards. these were families with children and babies in carriages, every breath shortening their lifespans! that by itself was dereliction of duty at the level of high treason! i was among 140,000 new yorkers, as reported by jimmy breslin months later, who got an intestinal ailment immediately following 911 from the air. damn near killed me and took months to recover. and breslin noted that he was apparently the first to even report it! never saw anther word on it.

we knew that hussein (empowered as an ally of the USG from 1959 CIA-hiring as an assassin through 1989, armed to the teeth), had always been despised as a 'liberal' by the islamic extremists who think women should be in burkas at home or being 'honor-killed' after being raped... 'too soft on gays and the unfaithful,' etc... and that hussein had nothing to do with 911.

but bush and cheney repeatedly said that he did to justify the iraq war which has killed some million iraqis, allegedly to 'liberate' them from our longtime puppet dictator... the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general haig, in unprecedented act, reprimanded bush-cheney for a range of known falsehoods regarding iraq, especially saying that hussein was party to 911. google 'cheney denies hussein 911 link' and you'll see he only admitted this in 2009 and though it was he who said it the most, he blames bush for it and will state this in his memoir.

but as the author says, this won't dissuade roughly 20% of americans from continuing to believe what they were led to believe by those liars lies. as mark twain said, "what the american public don't know is what makes it the american public." this is old hat... only two members of congress, (republican grunig of alaska and democrat morse of oregon), voted against the 'gulf of tonkin resolution' that fired the viet war. only later does it come out that the photos and story of the tonkin incident were entirely fabricated... you can fool 535 congressmen but not two of them...

it took 40 years for the USG to admit to the 1940s 'tuskegee syphilis experiment' in which hundreds of black men were deliberately infected with it.it took 50 years for the USG to admit to its ongoing 'department of human radiation experiments.' it took 20 years for the USG to admit to its MK Ultra psy-ops torture and mind control tech which is still used, with spychiatrist's help in obama's continuation of the bush-cheney CIA rendition torture program. it took 150 years for the USG to admit all details of president andrew jackson's smallpox-saturated blanket campaign which killed millions of people when it was exported to the other white-ruled countries in the hemisphere. the mere assassination of JFK classified documents are to be released, maybe, in 2030. as to when all the files on such things as AIDS or 911 will, if ever, be released is anyone's guess. and are those files even to be believed?

i call these 'the unbelievable oughts' ('00s)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If Saddam wasn't behind 9/11, then who was????
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kellysgarden on Nov 5, 2009 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The FBI says bin Laden wasn't behind the attacks either!

The real perps of 9/11 must still be out there!

How about AlterNet write a story on just who the culprits might be, if not Saddam and bin Laden!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: weathered
» show trial Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: show trial Posted by: kellysgarden
» Lying again, kellysgarden? Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

mencken
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tazdelaney on Nov 5, 2009 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hl mencken, the great baltimore pundit, would've had a good time with all the barrage of lies in the government's official story about 911. here's one of his best quotes, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

thing is, 'you CAN fool ENOUGH of the people ENOUGH of the time, obviously... especially when government schemers and the corporatists control the overwhelming media machinery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Guitar Bill is just like ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kellysgarden on Nov 5, 2009 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just like the article describes. Not willing to look at the facts and sticks to an opinion he formed long ago.

The author of the article could have used Guitar Bill as one of the examples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Guitar Bill is just like ... Posted by: kellysgarden

Comments are closed-

I can name a "liberal" example of closed beliefs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Nov 5, 2009 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It involved the Pring-Wilson murder trial in Cambridge from several years ago. According to Alex Pring-Wilson, a Harvard Grad student, he had words with two Hispanic teens that were in a car, which then jumped out and attacked him. He fended them off with a pocket knife while kneeling on the ground, stabbing one, who later died. According to the prosecution, he had words and then went psycho after being called a “shit faced drunk”. He aggressively attacked one of the teens, killing him.

The “liberal” opinion was that a minority had to be more believable than a white grad student, even though the victim and his cousin (who was in the car) had a history of violence. When I attempted to write a letter to the editor of the Harvard school newspaper refuting some of the claims against Ping-Wilson, they refused to publish it without comment.

The witnesses, the cousin and his girl friend, constantly changed their stories over the period of two trials. When I wrote comments in the Court TV blog, other bloggers interjected comments based on “facts” not in evidence in the case, either from the trial or from news accounts.

My expertise is in physical self defense. When I pointed out major flaws in the prosecution case, the result was a torrent of ad hominem attacks with none of the “liberals” dealing at all with the science behind my analysis.

The case came to a close with a hung jury. Pring-Wilson pleaded guilty so as not to go through still another trial.

Liberals may be more educated and better informed than conservatives; however, “victim ideology” that often infects liberal theories can be a form of its own craziness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Cognitive Dissonance
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Steppin Razor on Nov 5, 2009 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "Why" People still believe what is false is Cognitive Dissonance.

If they had to recognise that they were fooled they would have extreme feelings that they were fools or stupid. Better that they hold on to false beliefs than recognise the truth, that they were lied to and were fooled and may have been stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

kellysgarden
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tazdelaney on Nov 5, 2009 11:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
good point. you may have noticed that those who disbelieve the government's story on 911 are derided as nut conspiracy theorists while more and more that casts doubt on that story emerge.

in 1994, i read an extensive article in britain's 'the economist' magazine about how the largest funder of islamic extremists was and had long been saudi arabia, with the full knowledge and tacit approval of the US CIA and state department.

of more interest, in 1993, the great old trade journal of the intelligence community, 'covert action quarterly' had an article in which 'former' agents of CIA, MI6 and such recounted projects in which a very small number of operatives pulled off 'terrorist' events which were made to look like they'd been carried out by basque seperatists, red brigade or the like.

there is so much material just laying around almost on the surface without even going to such as 911review.com about this. i mean, just 'the air is safe' was a huge lie. but how about the CIA's longtime bin laden expert saying that the tapes and images of bin laden from 911 on were demonstrably not bin laden at all.

i could go on and on, but will leave off with this... since 1962, it had been law that anyone spotting an airliner off of its flight-plan had to report it to FAA/FBI or air force. at least 60 persons did this on the morning of 911. thousands of jets had plenty of time to intecept the highjacked jets bound for WTC (flew right over the better target of indian point nuclear power plant, BANG!), yet none were sent. an assistant to cheney reported that not only was cheney not where he claimed to have been at the time, but this aide believed he had overheard a conversation in which cheney was ordering an air force official to stand down...

and that day was a million iraqi deaths ago...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kellysgarden Posted by: Steppin Razor
» RE: Why? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: kellysgarden Posted by: EncinoM
» Waterboard Silverstein Posted by: weathered
» Well Hello there weathered Posted by: EncinoM

Comments are closed-

Idiot America
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ellspouses on Nov 5, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read the new book out by Charles Pierce titled Idiot America. He thoughtfully (and humorously) explains that any idea, regardless of how stupid or baseless it is, can become general belief if enough people hear and say it. If you say it loud enough long enough it has to be true.
Which explains people who absolutely believe there's no credence to climate change, Obama being a citizen, dinosaurs existing before humans, etc. Facts don't matter, which is scary.

People were blessed with the gift of thought and reason. Too many of us seem to have forgotten how to use the gift.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Subjective vs objective
[Report this comment]
Posted by: westomoon on Nov 5, 2009 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who score strongly toward the Feeling end of the Thinking-Feeling continuum in the Myers Briggs Type Indicator simply do not process objective facts and logical arguments. I once read that, for strongly F people, a fact is "what I'm feeling right now" (or "what my group is feeling"). They process data in a completely subjective way -- objective fact, analysis, logical argument -- all are meaningless to them.

I researched this a couple years ago when I was trapped in a business relationship with someone who tested at the farthest F reach of the T-F continuum, and it sure seemed to be true. This was around the time that the extreme right was suddenly dominating the discourse everywhere, when scientific fact suddenly became just another opinion, when "faith-based" became a good thing, when Fox News popped up and was treated as a respectable news outlet, and when illogic began to rule. And there was a strangely triumphant note of "Now it's our turn to define reality!" to the whole phenomenon.

I was puzzling over this one day and had a sudden flash -- these neocons were F people!

There are a couple of subjects -- physics & plumbing especially -- that I just can't grasp, no matter how hard I try. I thought what it would be like if everything we value -- job, school, understanding current events -- was ungraspable, as it would be for a strong F type. You'd spend your life scrambling to barely get by, you wouldn't be valued in the places that pay off, and you'd constantly have to cover up your cluelessness. The only places where your value would be recognized would be church, fraternal organizations, and sports -- the George Bush universe.

Basically, the last time F people had a world that fitted them was the Middle Ages -- as soon as the Enlightenment arrived, they became confused outsiders, only dimly grasping what everyone was talking about. And, since our country is completely an Enlightenment product, our Constitutional democracy is also a closed book to these people.

The completely irrational and emotional teabag movement seems like the clearest indicator that these are F people -- they are programmed through pure feeling, and it doesn't matter if it makes no sense. As soon as the right-wing Wurlitzer cranked up (courtesy of the 30-year plan), these F people were easy meat for the master-plan manipulators, who gave them a separate reality where they could feel at home and competent. Unless we dismantle the Wurlitzer and find some other way to let F people feel worthwhile, I'm afraid we're going to be dealing with the equivalent of a bunch of alcoholics who've been given an unending stream of liquor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Subjective vs objective Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Some "progressives" here are worse than right wingers elsewhere
[Report this comment]
Posted by: james108 on Nov 5, 2009 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're just as ignorant using democratic party rhetoric instead of republican rhetoric. Standing by mass murdering economic imperialist democrats while pretending to care is worse than right wingers standing by republicans while pretending to want small government. You mention the democrat record of mass murdering imperialism and support of the patriot act, fisa, the new Internet Czar, ect and their brains shut down.

The democrats plan slashes medicare and calls it savings. If it was saving medicare any money, medicare would still have it. It takes away from medicare funds, which is called a cut. You cut money to seniors and they get less services. It's real simple and if someone wants to call it a death panel, they're more correct than progressives pretending there are no cuts.

It's like they don't know Obama was for the Patriot Act, FISA spying, and wheeled & dealed his way in stinky Chicago corruption and now just has fantastic, big money PR and is willing to say anything with a straight face. The democrats, not republicans killed even discussion of single payer folks. It's the democrats leading the two faced standoff with Iran, making it seem like we're the good guys and Iran is the one being shady. It's the other way around in this case, especially since we pretend Israel shouldn't be held to the standard of any inspections.

There are many people here that know this, but just as many people who can't help but rationalize for Obama or the democrats every chance they get.

Bashing right wingers isn't the same as standing for anything good, and just makes the problem worse if you're covering for the democrats corruption and corporate fascism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Let's hope so. Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Cognitive Dissonance
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gor on Nov 5, 2009 2:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cognitive dissonance of the highest order. This is a mirror image of the core of Republican Party. Facts do not matter and cannot be let to stand on the way. I recall one of the weapons inspectors narrating the reaction of his colleagues when Secretary Powell was making a full of fool of himself while holding a tube that he claimed was a sample of poison that Saddam had stock-piled. The weapons inspector and his peers are said to have laughed their heads off during Powel’s presentation. They knew very well that they were a string of lies concocted to stampede the American people. Over a third of them (believers in Saddam conspiracy) are die-hard believers to this day. Once they have been told to hate somebody it is impossible to unwind even when the instigator renounces the “facts” as lies

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Johann Hari and Barbara Ehrenreich
[Report this comment]
Posted by: deang on Nov 5, 2009 9:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
British political writer Johann Hari had this to say about Republican tendencies to elevate outlandish beliefs over evidence and reason:

"How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have "faith" – which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don't have "faith" that Australia exists, or that fire burns: you have evidence. You only need "faith" to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational."

And Barbara Ehrenreich talks about the secular equivalents in the US called "positive thinking" in her latest book, Bright Sided.

I do want to chide the study's authors and the writer of this piece for talking as though this is a tendency of all people. It is a distinctly US phenomenon, worst among the right-wingers that have risen to prominence in the last 30 years, but with equivalent mind-over-matter tendencies among the general US population. It is almost entirely absent elsewhere in the world, certainly alien to European ways of thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

very true
[Report this comment]
Posted by: deang on Nov 5, 2009 9:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is very true. The authors of this piece worded this to put the onus on non-right-wingers to find a way to talk to them that doesn't involve reason or facts, while intimating that such crazy irrationality is a tendency of people in general. It isn't. It's a sort of wishful thinking common among US right-wingers. They don't want to acknowledge the truth because it gets in the way of their bad intentions (in this case, to slaughter Arabs), so they make up things and elevate opinions over facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

AD ATTENTION ALERT
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zyclop on Nov 7, 2009 6:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
be careful

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

9/11 is not a left/right issue.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: shadow7 on Nov 7, 2009 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are three groups of people in the US, when it comes to conclusions about the attacks of 9/11. There are those who believe the official story, there are those who know that the official story is totally without foundation, and the majority group - those who have never seen the evidence that has been unearthed to totally discredit the lies we have been told.

Just Google 9/11 Facts...not theories or conspiracy ideas...just FACTS. Several million links come up. Check out some of them, just to see what the msm has refused to reveal. Then understand that any discussion of 9/11 that dares to question the Bush/PNAC fairy tale - is taboo. it is verboten and carefully guarded by gatekeepers on the right as well as the left. Think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Yes. And here is the selective "Image" of Muslims needed to keep fighting an endless global war
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peaceia85 on Nov 7, 2009 4:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes. The public is willing to believe that all Muslims have some an evil gene??
And CNN and Fox and others exploit it for ratings. So they make the fort hood guy say "God is great" as he starts to kill. And his opposition to war becomes "early red flags " that we failed to see. (so all who opposed war are flagged.
And all goes back to his religion. So Blitzer, Anderson, Amanpour make fantastic specials about how radical Muslims are. (almost one quarter of humanity with an evil gene and that you can not reason with them). So we have to fight them. So the global war goes on. The Military industrial complex become wealthier and our sons abd daughters and many millions of civilians die over there.
They play us masterfully.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

9/111 was done by Islamists not Mossad,CIA,Saddam,LET IT GO
[Report this comment]
Posted by: whealeydj on Nov 7, 2009 7:49 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article focuses on right winger who still believe that Saddam was connected to 9/11 tragedy but the comment indicate some who hang out here are still willing to blame 9/11 on their favorite usual suspect Israel/Mossad/ or Bush Cheney/US national security state with our rationalized beliefs. I tend toward the latter but there is much greater evidence in subsequent events (like Katrina) of incompetent, arrogant,complacent ideologue in Bush regime who failed to stop the attack. They may have let it happen on purpose, but that can never be proven to so the more we waste our time on "proofs (that will NEVER BE BELIEVED by 97% of Americans)", less time we have to focus on today's politics such as health care reform and Afghanistan Intervention. start living in 2009.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

One more example of "motivated reasoning"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wildbill on Nov 8, 2009 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some folks want to believe the conspiracy theories so much that they dig up tiny details to support their arguments, or create "facts" to show that (pick one or add your own) George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney, the CIA, Mossad, the big oil companies, etc. were actually behind the 9/11 attacks, and they will cling to their beliefs no matter what anyone says. Look at the Kennedy assassination theories 46 years later - they haven't gone away, in spite of any lack of concrete proof. Same with the 1947 Roswell "UFO" crash. It's much easier to blame bad things on one big, bad bogeyman than to accept the idea that there is a large amount of uncontrollable chaos in human existence!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Tolstoy put it well when he said...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Old Uncle Dave on Nov 11, 2009 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

People Believe What They WANT to Believe....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: shill on Dec 3, 2009 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....facts be damned! Plus, as a society we have found later on down the line that many of the so called "facts" had been manufactured or skewed by some special interest group with the money and connections to the mainstream media to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Brain Dead
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 4, 2009 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conclusion: People are butt-ass stupid sometimes.

It's not just Saddam/9-11 and the health-care debate. Climate change also has many conservative skeptics, despite the SCIENCE that says that climate change is accelerating at a rate much faster than even scientists' previous worst-case scenarios.

I think I read that only about 1/3 (!) of Americans believe that climate change is real and is human-caused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: saucerattack
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: richholland
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: yusandnick
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: PeterW
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: Brain Dead Posted by: deang

Comments are closed-

Ill will
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Julian on Nov 5, 2009 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This kind of stupidity is driven by ill will, and ill will is culpable. There is no excuse for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Identity Crisis Posted by: folkie
» RE: Identity Crisis Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Identity Crisis Posted by: madregal
» Ill will? Or ill culture? Posted by: grailsnail

Comments are closed-

curiouser and curiouser
[Report this comment]
Posted by: yusandnick on Nov 5, 2009 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?"

Most curious to me is why the researchers found this curious. This type of fallacious reasoning is basic human nature.

"For the record, the authors say justifying false beliefs extends equally to liberals"

As anyone who reads AlterNet already knows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

My right-wing aunt...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: adp3d on Nov 5, 2009 2:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..called my mother(her sister) the other day claiming that Obama-care had just raised her health insurance rates. My moderately liberal mom replied, "Obama-care didn't raise your rates, the insurance company raised your rates...".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My right-wing aunt... Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: My right-wing aunt... Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair
» RE: Hey I'm an unlicensed plumber Posted by: abbadon2007

Comments are closed-

The dumb progs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Perry Logan on Nov 5, 2009 2:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressives do this, too.

Example: many progs say Hillary Clinton is a corporate Democrat or a "corporate shill," despite the fact that she receives sky-high ratings from progressive organizations.

It's simple logic: if Hillary were a corporate Democrat, these organizations would know.

I have conveyed this information to progressives on countless occasions, but it makes no dent. These folks have made up their mind, and evidence will have no effect.

Similarly, many lefties continue to repeat right-wing smears against the Clintons as fact. It doesn't matter how much information you give them.

Note that these irrational progressives are the ones who got snookered by Obama. They hang out at Democratic Underground and Huffington Post. They're the dumb progressives.

Hating ACORN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They're the dumb progressives. Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: SufiLizard
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: johnthetreehugger
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: Quicksilver
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: Alan8
» Try it yourself, Alan8 Posted by: Quicksilver
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: Dboy
» RE: The dumb progs Posted by: Quicksilver
» An unlicensed plumber Posted by: Hiroak

Comments are closed-

Ah, but who planted the seed?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: karinkdf82 on Nov 5, 2009 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who planted the seed? Certainly there is truth here, except you fail to mention that these people didn't come up with the Sadam/Bin Laden link on their own... so it isn't a case of President Bush reinforcing a belief that they already held. He planted the seed... and watered it religiously. It takes a special sort of person to contradict damning evidence. I tend to disagree that liberals are as prone to brainwashing, as you say. They all too often demand recorded facts... sources, sources, and more sources. Nor are they unwilling to change their minds once the facts are laid out in full view. Conservatives aren't necessarily immune to facts either. As I said, it takes a special sort. Was the study conducted at a teabag party, perchance?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We all know who planted the seed! Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

the military and media don't help
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jiclemens on Nov 5, 2009 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The news for the past 8 years has been peppered with interviews of enlisted men who stated, wherever they were in the Middle East that they were there to avenge 9/11. The military disinformation campaign is a well organized process that has been especially notable since Viet Nam. The difference between wars of the past and now is whether or not the media actively seeks the truth or takes the lazy path by parroting the disinformation. I have no doubt that most of the enlisted men went in for the reasons they state, but not one has been shown admitting they were lied to and the mission had nothing to do with 9/11.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» media don't help, but... Posted by: Tim Brown
» RE: media don't help, but... Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: media don't help, but... Posted by: aussidawg

Comments are closed-

reinventing Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Nov 5, 2009 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was decades ago that Leon Festinger came up with a fancy term for the fact that many people don't like to change their minds. And the more they are invested in an idea, the more they will cling to it and dismiss evidence to the contrary.

Smokers, he found, did not believe the link between smoking and lung cancer. The more they smoked, the greater their disbelief in the evidence.

Are they still selling those kitchen plaques that say "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Too fucking stupid
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rugger on Nov 5, 2009 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tragedy is, these people are allowed to vote and walk among us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too fucking stupid Posted by: Balanchine
» RE: Too fucking stupid Posted by: grailsnail

Comments are closed-

I wonder how this effect tracks over time
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SufiLizard on Nov 5, 2009 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure this sort of thing has always been with us, but I have to wonder if it's become more prevalent now, than say 50 or 60 years ago.

And if it fluctuates, how can we work to minimize it?

If it's relatively stable, how do we work around it? Clearly public opinion changes over time, if facts and evidence don't do much to change opinions what does?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Contrasting Right and Left.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 5, 2009 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do both sides call people names? Uh-huh.

Do we get angry because our core values are violated by our opponents? Yup.

Are we unswerving in our beliefs? You bet.

There are many important differences, however, in what both sides take arms against. The Left rails about actions, statements and events that the Right freely engages in, puts out and is proud of. The Right, as can be shown by the examples put forth in this article, is targeted by its leadership to believe in myths. The Far Right is the sub-party of the persistent ignorant inside the party of greed.

Where is the leadership of the Left standing up and grandstanding ridiculous lies about Right Wing candidates and officials? What do we use but their own words and actions when we hold them up to scrutiny? Do we look for their birth certificates? Are we damning them for thirty-year-old personal associations?

The author of this piece states, "according to the authors, justifying false beliefs extends equally to liberals, who they hypothesize would behave similarly given a different set of issues."

A different set of issues? We don't all rail around the same issues? During the Bush administration, what are the examples of the persistent lies told and believed about Bush, Cheney and the rest of the authors of the wars, Katrina, disastrous tax maneuverings, the wreck of the Constitution, the US PATRIOT ACT, disasters to numerous to list? Not what we protested against--WHAT DID WE LIE ABOUT? WHAT FACTS WERE NOT IN EVIDENCE? WHERE DID WE PERSIST IN BELIEFS THAT WERE BASED ON LIES?

I'll certainly entertain examples, from this author, the authors of the study, or from anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Contrasting Right and Left. Posted by: Jeff Greef
» RE: Contrasting Right and Left. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Contrasting Right and Left. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Contrasting Right and Left. Posted by: Longdream

Comments are closed-

Crocodile Tears Over Murder
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Nov 5, 2009 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only a naive person would believe that the 9/11 bombing surprised American intelligence. They looked the other way while the Saudi kings put the well orchestrated attack together. Trillions were made and a new foreign policy created. The loss of 3 thousand Civilians and two tall buildings was a cheap price to pay. Crocodile tears disguised the guilt of those that slept while innocent people were murdered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: weathered
» RE: Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Caesar777
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Caesar77 on Nov 5, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My, oh my, the Japanese missed a great opportunity when they attacked Pearl Harbor. They should have blamed it on Irish Leprechauns.
Dumb assholes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

headline -- more than this article delivers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davidcay on Nov 5, 2009 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article promises to explain some of the reasons that people cling to demonstrably false beliefs, but instead describes this troubling reality without explaining the underlying psychological mechanisms.

If the study authors do not know then the writer should say so and tell what, if anything, they are doing to develop answers through research.
If the study authors do know or have theories then the readers were shortchanged, their time wasted.

More -- and better -- reporting, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Try Reading This Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair

Comments are closed-

Faith vs. Reality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Handyman on Nov 5, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article states that the researchers "hypothesize" that liberals would behave similarly. Apparently they did not test this hypothesis, and I believe they would have discovered a much lesser degree of "fantasy persistence" in liberals/progressives than in conservatives.
It's about a difference in mind-set. Progressives tend to be "reality-based"; while conservatives are more "faith-based".
This helps explain why scientific and academic fields tend to include many more progressive individuals than conservative ones. And, though I'm not necessarily referring to religion with the term "faith-based", it also helps explain why conservatives are more susceptible to superstition, mythology, and religion. They tend to place more importance on what they WISH their world to be like, and what they BELIEVE it to be like, than on the actual reality of it.
Facts and evidence mean measurably less to conservatives than do the pre-existing beliefs held in their squirming, reptilian brains!

As David Popper, in The End of Reason, writes: "By definition, religion requires faith; and faith renounces evidence. Taking a proposition “on faith” means to consciously and willfully refuse to examine the facts. There is a word for this type of thinking: Superstition - a belief which is not based on human reason or scientific knowledge."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Faith vs. Reality Posted by: jdonovan
» RE: David Popper is full of it Posted by: humanrevolution

Comments are closed-

Where did they find all these stupid RESEARCHERS?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 5, 2009 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Others declined to engage the information at all. Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?"

Of course, people who can think don't find this curious at all; they didn't need to do a study to realize the source of this sort of opinion. In the presence of lies, facts and assertions are inconsistent. In the presence of inconsistent facts and assertions, people don't actually know what the truth is; they assume the existence of facts beyond their knowledge. They form theories, conspiracy theories if you will, that take the facts that don't make sense and make sense out of them by providing the missing pieces of the picture. If you believe that GWB was a faithful president defending his nation against terrorists in the wake of 9/11, of course you believe that he invaded Iraq because SH was behind the attacks. You believe it for the same reason other people believe that GWB was somehow involved in making the 9/11 attacks a success: it makes more sense than the official story. You guys couldn't figure this out?

This is, of course, one of the basic lessons of effective propaganda: graphic demonstrations that evoke visceral reactions provide the mind with powerful lessons that take precedence over mere words. You can't deny the pictures of Abu Ghraib, but you can imagine that our victims there deserved their treatment. By treating Jews as subhuman monsters worthy of extermination, the nazis made the popular case that they were just that. Our treatment of terrorist suspects is designed to place a similar vision of our enemies in our minds. And the invasion of Iraq proved SH's guilt for 9/11.

Once upon a time we had journalists who cared whether the reports they were bringing their viewers and readers made sense or not. After Tet, Westmoreland couldn't understand why everyone couldn't just go on repeating his lies like before; but they no longer made sense; there was obviously falsehood in them. He would have had no problem with today's press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Nothing New
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Terrible on Nov 5, 2009 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true."
Julius Caesar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Indict Silverstein
[Report this comment]
Posted by: weathered on Nov 5, 2009 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for insurance fraud and murder at the WTC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Whats missing?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ismac76 on Nov 5, 2009 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The missing piece is that we do not teach critical thinking skills as a science in schools, at least during the elementary and secondary schooling phase. As a society there is no shortage of people demonstrating and ultimately modeling what having a**hole opinions looks like and sounds like and the shameful media pretends that they know no better than to pretend that this in some way is what democracy or civil discourse amounts to. Conveniently, this turns people off so they ignore the brutal idiocy that goes on everyday in the carrying out of political governance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whats missing? Posted by: aussidawg

Comments are closed-

Reagan said it - "Facts are pesky things"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wiscorad on Nov 5, 2009 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fact 1-Military grade nanothermite found in debris of WTC.
Fact 2 - No bodies, boarding passes or any other evidence supporting presence of 19 hijackers on planes.
Fact 3 - WTC 7 was not hit by any planes.
Fact 4 - Mossad agents occupied WTC and had access to the buildings in advance of 9-11
Fact 5 - Shock waves from explosions recorded before planes hit.
Fact 6 - Larry Silverstein, WTC owner, took out insurance 6 weeks before attacks that specifically covered "terrorist attacks".
Fact 7 - Dick Cheney issued "stand down " order on interception of "plane" that was to hit Pentagon
Fact 8 - The 19 "hijackers" lived across the street from NSA facility before the attacks.
Fact 9 - George Bush's brother owned the security company that handled WTC.
Fact 10 - Invasion of Iraq planned long before 9-11
Fact 11 - Rumsfeld referred to Shanksville "plane", in a press conference, as the plane that was "shot down".
Fact 12 - Government will not release video of any plane hitting Pentagon
Fact 13 - FBI was on scene minutes after Pentagon was hit and confiscated all video from surrounding venues.
Fact 14 - Military experts on scene at Pentagon describe the odor of cordite - they are trained to recognize the smell.
Fact 15 - WTC was designed to withstand impact of commercial airliners.

Definition of "conspiracy": A secret agreement between 2 or more people to commit an illegal act.
Hitler had it right when he promoted the idea that if you repeat a big enough lie often enough, the public will believe it.
God rest the souls of the 3,000 victims who died at the hands of their own government for purposes of starting a war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Military grade nanothermite in dust Posted by: kellysgarden
» You defective little lymphnode Posted by: weathered
» Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: weathered
» RE: liar Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: liar Posted by: EncinoM
» Hi Weathered Posted by: EncinoM
» Hi Filipe. Posted by: GuitarBill
» NOT down the Hudson River Posted by: weathered
» Mossad/CIA DNA is all over 9/11 Posted by: weathered
» As Paul O'Neil Posted by: weathered
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» You are double so nasty Posted by: MaxBridges
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» See "Max", I'm a sweetheart. Posted by: GuitarBill
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Yeah, that's me, an infidel %^) Posted by: GuitarBill
» Nice try Posted by: weathered
» Good point, EncinoM. Thank you. Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

Interesting but it goes deeper than this...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jgrossnas on Nov 5, 2009 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of good points in the article but there's more reasons why people cling to false beliefs.

In the example of the Iraq war, a majority of Americans believed that it was indeed necessary to fight Saddam because the Bush administration presented a convincing-enough argument for them. Congress went along with it mostly too (though many other major countries were rightly skeptical).

When it turned out there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction or a 9-11 link, war supporters had a problem- if you admit that the whole thing was a boondoggle then don't you also admit that you were a fool for supporting such a thing? Some people could shallow the painful truth and admit that they were fooled and supported a war that they shouldn't have, making them look stupid. Others though didn't want to admit it because 1) some would always support Bush and/or the GOP, 2) they don't want to admit that America got involved in the wrong war again, 3) they don't want to admit that they helped send troops to their death or injury for the wrong reasons.

Bush had a knack for doing low-key mea culpa's without totally admitting anything wrong. Someone like Palin is much worse because she spreads total falsehoods about herself and various policies with no regrets at all. So far, that's served her well because some people like a leader who acts certain but sooner or later, the lies can catch up with you (as they did towards the end of McCain's campaign).

I think that people like Limbaugh and Beck can constantly get away with spreading falsehoods because their audience is largely uncritical- they don't care about processing the information differently than the way that it's presented to them. Unfortunately because they've managed to cultivate a large audience who feed off their anger, both of them are further enabled to do more and more damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If Israel didn't help engineer 9/11
[Report this comment]
Posted by: weathered on Nov 5, 2009 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they sure as hell were the cause of it.

Indict Silverstein for insurance fraud and murder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Rational Thinking
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 5, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even people who think rationally must start their reasoning with fundamental notions that they believe are rock-solid. Clearly these root beliefs are different for different people, and just as clearly, two people who reason based on totally different facts are quite apt to each conclude that the other is irrational or crazy.

John Dean wrote a book, Conservatives Without Conscience, which was devoted largely to a group of people called authoritarians. These people take as their root belief that their leaders are the ultimate authority, that what these people say is correct and not to be questioned. Interestingly, authoritarians are found everywhere in the world, but they are always conservatives. Maybe that is not so surprising, though it may be hard to get our minds around the idea that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck can be the authorities that so many follow blindly, but once that hurdle is passed, it is not hard to understand why others think them irrational.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ational Thinking Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

PerhapsThis is Why 911 is Dimissed Out O Hand
[Report this comment]
Posted by: edgar_michel on Nov 5, 2009 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That suggests that even the wrters for National Geographic, who refused to look at the evidence of the anomalies of the Official account of 911, refused to do so because they formed their opinions of 911 during a very emotional period and now cannot bring thmesleves to take an objective look at the preponderance of evidence. Perhaps it is that when opinions are formed during a very emotional state, there is pain involved in letting go of those emotionally formed opinions when new evidence contradicts those so formed opinions and the mind just looks for any avenue of escape.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Scientific American too Posted by: weathered
» RE: Scientific American too, bummer Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Mountains of disinformation Posted by: MaxBridges
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.

Comments are closed-

makes sense
[Report this comment]
Posted by: riffraff2001 on Nov 5, 2009 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are committed to keeping their opinions because otherwise they have to admit they were wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong, so they convince themselves that there is no possibility that they were wrong. The worst emotion you can experience or see in someone else is when denial is no longer an option and they are forced to realize that they have been wrong all along. It's really sad but completely understandable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: makes sense Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Look at the history of science Posted by: suprmark

Comments are closed-

great - now the 9/11 "truthers" crawls out of their holes to prove the point
[Report this comment]
Posted by: counterpoint on Nov 5, 2009 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The so called "truthers'" approach ties in nicely with the psychological mechanisms discussed in the article. The conspiracist authors usually employ cherry picking and anomaly hunting, bombarding people with supposedly 'unexplained' "facts" to create the impression of great evil.

I spent several months last year examining those "facts" - they all fall apart, and most importantly even if they didn't they wouldn't provide a coherent theory.

Having met several hard core truthers I can attest that the psychological need expressed by them is all too obvious, even where it started with a rational (and I would say: commendable) doubt and curiosity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» nice deflection douche bag Posted by: weathered
» Thank you, counterpoint. Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

Chilling
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lesserauk on Nov 5, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so chilling to hear a comment that accepts this as true simply because Bush invaded Iraq. The idea that we would blindly follow and accept things as true is very troublesome. Parents who have seen children die in Iraq would justifiably be in denial that the war is based entirely on a lie. But there has been ample evidence that we shouldn't put our unconditional trust in an elected official just because we voted for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Missing the point Posted by: leafsong1
» Off-topic and way too crazy Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

Difference between facts and beliefs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Casey Burns on Nov 5, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I occasionally dabble in some paleontology as a highly trained amateur, and have had the opportunity of working and publishing with some of the best scientists on the planet. For me it was a learning experience in terms of the difference between scientific reasoning and belief systems.

I asked one what he says in response to people asking him if he "believes in evolution". His response was elegant "I don't believe in evolution. I observe it and measure it."

Working with the scientists I learned to discriminate the fine line between wild hypothesis and fact/truth. In terms of what we could say in print - it could only be based on fact, not on wild ideas and beliefs. And other scientists looked at, and checked our work. When they disagreed with us, we couldn't just brush it off - we had to answer their disagreements and in many cases they were correct. This is known as peer review.

This was initially frustrating to me as I had to give up some long-held beliefs which I had long wanted in print. But then once I let go, a deeper understanding resulted. More or less a Scientific Satori. Keeping those beliefs intact would have resulted in bad science!

A problem in our society is that few, especially the creationists, the global warming and peak oil deniers, and the healthcare teabaggers, don't have a clue that they are working on belief systems, and then assume everyone else does, especially the scientists. I suspect many are brought up in or associate with a church-based culture where beliefs in god and heaven are paramount - and this conditions them to think this way. These are my hypotheses - which remain to be tested.

This cultural imprint is impossible to overcome, which is why this mode of thinking persists and why the believers act in contrary to their own self interests.

It doesn't help that the sciences in the primary and secondary schools have been routed - or worse, infiltrated by the creationists who insist that Genesis be taught alongside with evolution. More emphasis on the scientific method - and emphasizing the difference between truth and belief - is needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A crisis of trust in information
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zoz on Nov 5, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The effects seen are really a testament to our lack of trust in our news organizations.

The researcher said that people wouldn't change their opinion even in the face of accurate information, but that is a biased statement. The research subject is not in a position to truly know that a given piece of information is factual.

This is why Fox news would have a tough time convincing me of anything. I just don't trust them. And conservatives don't trust media that they perceive as liberal.

In the absence of a single news source trusted by both sides, each will simply find ones to reinforce their own viewpoint. The average person will always be hard pressed to do the grunt work of researching the facts. We're all looking for a "trusted agent".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A True Story
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 5, 2009 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You may have already noticed that there is a "lie" in "beLIEve".
-

A true story: I had an argument with a Republican recently, but it wasn't an argument about politics.

The Republican insisted that the word "concave" meant bulging out, and "convex" meant curving in, the opposite of what the words really mean.
("ConCAVE has the word "cave" in it -- that's how you can remember these words' true meanings.)

Well, his Democrat wife and I tried and tried to set him straight, but he kept insisting the words were antonyms of what they really are.

Finally, I got a dictionary, and proved I was right. (Yay! I won an argument with a Republican, although it was not over politics.)

He accepted his defeat, to his credit. (He isn't a real loon, relative to most Republicans.) But he was saddened that he was wrong about something.

Boy, did he have reason to be sad, then in that case, given his political beliefs!

I don't know what my point for posting this is. I guess it is that, it IS possible to convert at least some of the more moderate Republicans to believing in the truth if you can provide irrefutable proof that their original beliefs are wrong,... at least in regards to non-political issues.
:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Oldjohn
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Oldjohn on Nov 5, 2009 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"No one has ever lost money underestimating the taste [intelligence] of the American People." I believe it was H. L. Mencken who said that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

dumb and dumberer
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eosrk on Nov 5, 2009 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the way I describe this...these fools still believe Saddam had something to do with it....and bad enough we had a administration stupid enough to believe it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I have been wodereing for many years whatever -----
[Report this comment]
Posted by: symcokid on Nov 5, 2009 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
happened to the Native Indian Trust Fund Monies and now the truth comes out Saddam Hussein took all of the money. No wonder Bush went to war against Iraq, to justify another wrong against the Indigenous People - what a man!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What does this say about our justice system?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jrmart on Nov 5, 2009 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This study would indicate that jury trials are a farce. Of 12 jurors one might expect to find at least one who will twist all testimony to fit his/her "perception" I also take issue that this is equally true of "liberals"
The very difference between liberal thinkers and right wing "conservatives" is what separates us from them.
This is a very disturbing report, for IF true (and the recent rhetoric, would seem to validate it) then the country is doomed A country divided cannot stand. One of most vicious wars in history was fought on that premise.
So long America, it was good to know ya!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I'm still trying to figure out how Osama bin-Forgotten & his 19 lackeys w/boxcutters defeated our
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 5, 2009 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
trillion-dollar defenses??? The "official story" sounds fishy too!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

BACK TO HAUNT US
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 5, 2009 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The invasion of Iraq was the biggest hoax ever put over on the American people. The Iraqis have paid the price. George Bush dreamed of invading Iraq long before he was president. 9/11 provided him with his sales pitch. He pitched his 'values' crap and people bought into it. I'll never know why. At the time of the invasion most Americans couldn't find Baghdad on the map. But they got behind their president. That's what I was told. As far as I could see Bush drew a line from point A to point B. Made it seem as though there were no other possibilities. Saddam Hussein was an easy sell, he was indeed a mean dictator. But at the time there were at least a dozen others around the world but they went on undisturbed. People seem to cling to a small part of what they believe to be true and over time it gets more and more real. The connection that Bush contrived will never completely go away. The refusal of our govenment to prosecute those responsible will make it possible for the story to remain "true" to many people. And so the lie will live on. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Right-Wing Authoritarians
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wmholt on Nov 5, 2009 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is research showing that right-wing authoritarians (RWA's) process information differently than other people.

Unlike the authors of this study, who simply *believe* that liberals would behave the same way given a different set of issues, these researchers found that RWA's are particularly susceptible to believing lies and becoming fearful, which is why Republicans use those political weapons so often.

Here is the research link:

The Authoritarians

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

W/out 9/11 we wouldn't be in Iraq/Afgn.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: weathered on Nov 5, 2009 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
W/out 9/11 there would be NO patriot/homeland insecurity, no break down of political process/representation.

None of this madness would have traction w/out MSM monster contorting anything that resembles a truth. Enjoy the fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What Israel hates most?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: weathered on Nov 5, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Getting caught in the headlights of their very own remarlable arrogance and diabolic deceit and having NO one elsde to manipulate blame onto.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Israel hates most? Posted by: weathered

Comments are closed-

believers, deniers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jareilly on Nov 5, 2009 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These credulous people, may be "active cognitive agents" or not. By any reasonable measure, they are frankly, stupid and lazy. They are also full of almost infinite resentment and grievance, which has no real target, so Saddam Hussein is as good as anybody. The problem with them, for the rest of us, is that they are not content to live amongst themselves, marinading in their corrosive and infantile worldview. In order to justify their inchoate "belief system", they must make continued and often violent attempts to inflict this voodoo on the rest of us.

If the South had not already been trying to spread slavery to the new territories (the reason, Texans fought Santa Ana at the Alamo), there would have been no real reason not to let them secede. Who really needed southern Alabama or rural South Carolina, anyway? But the Confederates, like their descendants mentioned in the article, would have fought the Civil War in every state as the country moved west. It would never have ended. Or at least not until the USA had exhausted itself in bloodshed. That apocalyptic ending would have been further justification for the "believers".

The only thing wrong with Sherman's March was not that it was destructive; it was that the March was not desctructive enough. The North should have kept large garrisons of federal troops in the South until the turn of the century and shot KKK members on sight. Instead, the North turned back to the business of making money by exploiting the land and the waves of impoverished immigrants arriving each year and let the KKK take over the South. This was just possibly the first example in history of a terrorist organization seizing political control of major territory through, murder, rape, torture, mutilation, property seizure and torture. Terrorists ever since have recieved great inspiration from the KKK. And hapless, debased drones like the survey subjects in the article have live whole, wasted lives, rationalizing the present outcome.

The South did rise again. And the world has been ass-deep in blood ever since.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Could It Be Outright Lies (Sophism) and Reflexive Subjective Propaganda?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nobyjingo on Nov 5, 2009 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be that outright lies (sophism) told by people in government authority mixed with subjective propaganda (told by people in government authority) with either no objective truth or only a minuscule shadow of objective truth, AND a conformed media echo-chamber with NO equivalent alternative government authority's continued contradictory voices in Local media or mainstream media has caused ONLY reflexive reactions from people as to why many people accept what was presented for years as truth by government authority figures???????

Lies and distortions by Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS when finally corrected, are without any fanfare whatsoever, and there is NO Local or mainstream media broadcasting the changes over and over and over again and again; therefore, the common people parrot back the original reflections in their minds of what was originally stated as truth and broadcast continually by government authority figures that the people want to trust, even though their lies and distortions have been reneged on and changed; the correction of the outright lies and distortions are given little attention, so as not to make an imprint, in order that what was originally purported as truth will remain the imprint and still seem feasible to be truth, as the original lies and distortions were given huge fanfare continually for days on end -- even months and years.

Outright lies (sophism) and subjective propaganda works well to lead the people of the Common MAJORITY against their best interest and it should be illegal to use such Hitleresque sophism and propaganda against the people of ones own nation, but apparently it isn't anymore, but it definitely should be; and once was illegal in the United States, after World War II and the Hitler Regime's use of sophism and propaganda; used not only against the world, but against the citizens of Germany itself to keep the people deceived as to what was actually happening to its citizens.

Since Hitleresque military style sophism and subjective/objective propaganda is now being and has been blatantly used in the United States against the people of the Common Majority, it is no wonder why lies and distortions are accepted as truth by many people; therefore, it is time to start up the Institute of Propaganda Analysis again, so that propagandists can be weeded out of the media, because it is not in the best interest of the people of a nation to have sophism and propaganda used against the best interest of the people of that nation's citizens.

Christian leaders need to rely on God to call Christians, and not choose to use propaganda as a greedy tool for filling church pews. No Christian leader should hold out for the government to allow the churches to use propaganda to fill the pews in the churches. Christian leaders that have to rely on propaganda should not be leaders in the churches at all.

When military style sophism (outright lies) and propaganda use by authority figures against the people of the United States is discontinued, the people will not be so ignorant as to reality, and such polls of ignorance will no longer be possible.

Is a propagandized patriot, a real patriot?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

YES !!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bepa on Nov 5, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This research is going at the essence of the problems of how to find the truth.

Very few trust the news media and there are so many conspiracy theories now on all sides.

We need reliable factual sources to use as a base to build our opinions from...and people who willfully lie should be exposed as liars.

(Did we ever have good sources? Or was the news always tainted with opinion?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

To be a conservative or Republican
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 5, 2009 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the US today after all that has happened during the Bush years you have to be stupid. It's actually a major part of the definition of "conservative". The survey mentioned in this article is simply another proof of that fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Worse than stupid: Orwellian Posted by: eddie torres

Comments are closed-

The endless looping of 9/11 footage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: keystone999 on Nov 5, 2009 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
created a highly emotional state in America. In fear and confusion - with MSM help, our leaders were able to chip away at our constitutional rights, lie to us and push us into war on 2 fronts. Similar lies were used to scare us into bailing out Wallstreet. No one makes good decisions in a state of fear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Eh, Congress wasn't interviewed either...and they swallowed the kool-aid
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Alex Hidell on Nov 5, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Sept 2001 and Oct 2002 AUMF's (authorizations for use of military force) all gave the President whatever powers he deemed necessary.

If there are any dumb hicks out there in the GOP just remember folks that there were plenty of dumber 'smart guys in the room' in congress willing to play along.

It's the Milgram Experiment, and they dumbed Congress down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

the unbelievable oughts
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tazdelaney on Nov 5, 2009 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in 1700BC egypt, a favored saying was 'if pharaoh's men say it; it isn't true;' though they probably didn't say it too loudly. 91.1% of everything gaseously emitted by the US government (or most governments, for that matter), are purest lies. while those of us who disbelieve the official story on 911 are held up to ridicule as 'paranoid conspiracy theorists' at large... as new yorkers, wife and i had a list of a dozen outpoints by that day's end. take for instance the fact that at 10:15, the NYC EPA found the air deadly toxic and wanted all persons warned to stay indoors, use anay kind of breath filter going out... at 11:30, federal EPA announced that, quote, "the air is safe." at 1:30, i went out and found the avenues a mournful, worried parade as far as the eye could see, walking right towards the crystalline plumes which plagued the city for weeks afterwards. these were families with children and babies in carriages, every breath shortening their lifespans! that by itself was dereliction of duty at the level of high treason! i was among 140,000 new yorkers, as reported by jimmy breslin months later, who got an intestinal ailment immediately following 911 from the air. damn near killed me and took months to recover. and breslin noted that he was apparently the first to even report it! never saw anther word on it.

we knew that hussein (empowered as an ally of the USG from 1959 CIA-hiring as an assassin through 1989, armed to the teeth), had always been despised as a 'liberal' by the islamic extremists who think women should be in burkas at home or being 'honor-killed' after being raped... 'too soft on gays and the unfaithful,' etc... and that hussein had nothing to do with 911.

but bush and cheney repeatedly said that he did to justify the iraq war which has killed some million iraqis, allegedly to 'liberate' them from our longtime puppet dictator... the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general haig, in unprecedented act, reprimanded bush-cheney for a range of known falsehoods regarding iraq, especially saying that hussein was party to 911. google 'cheney denies hussein 911 link' and you'll see he only admitted this in 2009 and though it was he who said it the most, he blames bush for it and will state this in his memoir.

but as the author says, this won't dissuade roughly 20% of americans from continuing to believe what they were led to believe by those liars lies. as mark twain said, "what the american public don't know is what makes it the american public." this is old hat... only two members of congress, (republican grunig of alaska and democrat morse of oregon), voted against the 'gulf of tonkin resolution' that fired the viet war. only later does it come out that the photos and story of the tonkin incident were entirely fabricated... you can fool 535 congressmen but not two of them...

it took 40 years for the USG to admit to the 1940s 'tuskegee syphilis experiment' in which hundreds of black men were deliberately infected with it.it took 50 years for the USG to admit to its ongoing 'department of human radiation experiments.' it took 20 years for the USG to admit to its MK Ultra psy-ops torture and mind control tech which is still used, with spychiatrist's help in obama's continuation of the bush-cheney CIA rendition torture program. it took 150 years for the USG to admit all details of president andrew jackson's smallpox-saturated blanket campaign which killed millions of people when it was exported to the other white-ruled countries in the hemisphere. the mere assassination of JFK classified documents are to be released, maybe, in 2030. as to when all the files on such things as AIDS or 911 will, if ever, be released is anyone's guess. and are those files even to be believed?

i call these 'the unbelievable oughts' ('00s)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If Saddam wasn't behind 9/11, then who was????
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kellysgarden on Nov 5, 2009 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The FBI says bin Laden wasn't behind the attacks either!

The real perps of 9/11 must still be out there!

How about AlterNet write a story on just who the culprits might be, if not Saddam and bin Laden!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]