The Program on International Policy Attitudes is continuing its excellent work in...well...in exposing how inexcusably stupid a lot of people who'll be voting for Bush are. This is, I think, largely attributable to the Fox News factor, about which I've blogged before. PIPA's latest survey (full report here (.pdf), press release here) reveals that, among other things:
-"Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program."-"75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda [20% of whom believe that Iraq was "directly involved" in 9/11], and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission."
-"[A] key reason why Bush supporters may hold to the beliefs that Iraq had WMD and supported al Qaeda is that it is necessary to their support for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Eighty-five percent of Bush supporters say that going to war was the right decision. However, asked what the US should have done “If, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,” 58% of Bush supporters said in that case the US should not have gone to war. Furthermore, 61% express confidence that in that case the President would not have gone to war. To preserve the belief that that going to war was the right decision, it appears necessary for Bush supporters to believe that Iraq that the assumptions that prompted going to war were correct."
This last point seems to indicate that Jim Henley's hypothesis that the hawk position has moved from "I support the War for the sake of this reason," to "I support this reason for the sake of the War" is correct.
Also, can informed, intellectually honest conservatives explain away this phenomenon? Do they find it disturbing? Does it matter? Are Bush voters ashamed at all of being associated with such people? (National Review types, I'm looking in your direction.)
Update: Kate O'Beirne seems blissfully ignorant that the ignorant will be voting for her guy.
Comments