We are willfully uninformed

According to a Newsweek poll released Saturday, we Americans - or at least a significant number of us - are every bit as willfully uninformed (politer than "ignorant jackasses") as the rest of the world makes us out to be. It didn't say that directly, of course, but it's hard to reach another conclusion.

Some 65% said Richard Clarke's testimony hasn't changed their opinion of Shrub. Standing alone, that of course doesn't mean much: It didn't change mine, either - I already knew he was a self-centered creep whose only concern is his own position and that of his rich cronies and who dismissed credible threats to the physical safety of Americans because it might impact relations with the Saudis.

Half said that Clarke was acting for personal or political reasons. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot, since acting out of conviction or even frustration could be called a "personal reason" with impacting the truth of what was said. But the fact that the response is so in line with what the slime buckets are throwing at Clarke to discredit him personally makes it disturbing.

Then there's the fact that 10% of respondents said Clarke's testimony improved their view of Bush. That betrays either deliberate lying to the pollsters or a truly twisted thought process.

But this is the one that got me:

Two-thirds said the Clinton administration did not take the threat of terror seriously enough, while six in 10 said the Bush administration has taken the threat as seriously as it should.

This is after clear testimony that the Clinton administration treated it as an "urgent" issue, with only Middle East peace taking a higher foreign policy priority, while the Bush administration downgraded it to the point where they basically ignored it until a week before 9/11.

You don't need to endorse Clinton's policies on terrorism (I didn't and don't) to realize this is the exact opposite of Clarke's testimony but right in line with the White House propaganda that they wanted to - and did - "do more" than Clinton. The slack-jawed dullards who make up a measurable portion of the electorate would rather swallow whatever bilge Fox Spews presents than actually pay attention and do just the least bit of critical thinking.

Sometimes I just want to give up.

Footnote: See if you can follow this. The link to the story above is broken; it gives a "story not found!!" error. The new lilnk is here. In addition to the link, the headline and the lead have both changed. Originally, it said "Clarke not hurting Bush" and emphasized the 65% who say their view hasn't changed. Now it reads "Poll: Clarke Doubted; Bush Support Ebbs" and leads with the finding that Bush's support on terrorism issues has dropped from 65% just before the hearings to 57% now.

At the same time, MSNBC, referring to the same poll, calls it a "Blow For Bush" in the headline and a "sharp blow" in the lead. The article also compares Bush's current rating to his high of 70% two months ago, make the drop seem even more dramatic.

Make of that what you will.