well, it had a bad title, but this idea could bring about some interesting discussion. I'll try my best to elevate this thing and even maybe allow some insight, too.
For every white-trash confederate flag waving moron who supports Bush, there is an equally out of touch treehugging peacenik hippie that supports Kerry. For every wealthy lawyer that supports kerry, there is an even wealthier doctor that supports Bush. For every brilliant professor that supports Kerry, there is a corporate vice president of something-or-other that supports Bush. For every billionaire that supports Kerry there are two millionaires that support Bush. You get the picture.
The reality of each of them varies quite dramatically from the reality of a different subset.
This report focused on one distinct issue -Iraq and it's impact on foriegn policy. (yes, I know it talked about several other matters, like treaties, etc.. but this was the focus) On that issue, Bush supporters were more likely to trust their president when he proclaimed that Iraq had wmd. They thought there was a link between the islamic bad guys that attacked America on September 11th and the Islamic bad guys that were in Iraq. The conclusions of this report are based on two false premises.
1. there was no link
While I think it is clear that Iraq did not have direct involvement with the 9/11 attackers, the ongoing problems there and the influx of non-Iraqi islamic people wanting to destroy Americans and violently create havoc might lead one to believe that there is, in fact a link. Lots of islamic fundamentalists in other nations want to cause as much harm to the United States as they can, while represing their own citizens. The taliban falls into this category, just as Iraq did. This does not even take into account the possibility that sometime after 9/11, if Iraq had had wmd, that they would try to help al Q by providing them access to those weapons.
2. as was stated earlier, the presumption that support of the war in iraq meant a belief that wmd existed in iraq. Personally, I thought Bush was using the possibility of WMD as justification, or an excuse, to enter war, and make it more palatable to the world to do so. It was a very good justification, if true, but I for one, and at least one other poster above would have supported an invasion of Iraq even if there had not been "proof" of WMD. An earlier poster derisively referred to the imperial Pax Americana. What people forget is that while Rome was the only power around, the first part of that phrase, Pax, Latin for peace, took place on a scale rarely seen before or since.
You had a counrty in Iraq who was a sworn enemy of the United States that had continuously broken the 1991 ceasefire by trying to shoot American and British planes; was completely in violation of several UN security counsel resolutions, not to mention abusing the oil-for-food program; and might have, as a nation, helped people who had directly attacked America; a chance to free an oppressed people that had been the victims of their own government on a terrible scale, a chance to eventually have an American alley in the most volitile region in the planet so we wouldn't have to rely on the Saudis for airbases and oil, and a chance to help set an example for other troublesome nations. (like Libya, that quickly gave up its wmd stockpile)
You could just as easily create a questionaire and ask Kerry supporters about economic issues like, have the bush tax cuts helped the rich and hurt the poor? Kerry supporters would likely say yes.
even usually liberal sources agree that that is not the case after studying the matter.
bush's tax cuts are unfair... to the rich --Slate magazine
The same thing could be done about global warming, or nationalized healthcare, or social security. What is the reality to some might seem very ignorant to others, and you can come up with "facts" to support your reality and make the other side appear, yes, "stupid."