<p>Something like 2/3 of all poll respondents are against the Iraq war and have a dim view of US prospects there. That number had spiked a couple of months ago and has now returned to the previously established range. </p>
<p>You can probably find all the relevant data on <a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com%5B/url%5D”>www.pollingreport.com</a>, one of the best polling aggregators around.</p>
<p>
Again, predictable. I did not say that, I pointed out that those proud flag-bearers of the not-Right have set a standard of “hate” that my own feelings are only now beginning to reach
No it will not. We will eventually leave Iraq in the same disarray it is in now, only with many more dead Americans. That, unfortunately, is what is fine by you.</p>
<p>There’s been no significant change in the polls, nor do I expect there to be. The 30% of the population who can fairly be described as “dead-enders” will cheer the Republican administration no matter what. What has happened recently is a renewed propaganda effort by the right. I’ll admit - when I read the article that this thread is based on I wanted it to be true. Could it be that there really is a light at the end of this long, dark, tunnel? Can we snatch something from this fiasco that will make the casual waste of so many American lives - not to mention Iraqi lives - somehow less of a tragedy?</p>
<p>I wanted it to be true. And I’m sure I’m not alone. If by some miracle something good could come out of all of the misinformation about WMD, al qaeda in Iraq, “Mission Accomplished”; all the tub thumping and flag waving and name-calling - I don’t care who gets the credit. I just want something good for America out of all we have spent in money and lives.</p>
<p>But “Fool me once…” Yeah, I waited to see if what the authors of the article wrote was true. And it started trickling out, bit by bit. They weren’t opponents of the war from the start, as they implied. The stories they told were anecdotes unsupported by widespread reality, subjective opinions filtered through the same kind of wishful thinking that framed the disastrous implementation of the administration’s misguided policies in the first place.</p>
<p>Just more of the same. Reality sets in. We’re screwed. It’s just a question of how badly we’re screwed, and in what exact manner. And perhaps the most offensive part of the whole story is the number of American lives that will be thrown away over the next two years just so George W. Bush can ensure that the last act of his failure isn’t played out until he leaves office.</p>
<p>
You and yours have made a misdirected invasion as a response to 9/11, killed thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, destabilized the Middle East, poisoned by association democratic moderates in the region thereby accentuating the divide between the autocrats and the moderates, acted in every conceivable manner as a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda, squandered a legacy of half a century’s worth of diplomatic effort based on something besides “might makes right” and tarnished America’s image around the world into the bargain, fomented an atmosphere in the Arab world that will take decades to improve, in the processing mortgaging the financial strength of my daughter’s generation, while at home moving steadily towards a “unitary executive” police state where the White House can decide who gets imprisoned or spied upon without judicial review based upon its own say so, and has done their best to turn the Department of Justice into an arm of the Republican National Committee…and I’m irrational? All this on top of the usual Republican buggering of the environment, labor, women, gays, and promoting a fundamentalist Christian social agenda.</p>
<p>
There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip but I’d rather play the Democratic cards than the Republican cards heading into November 8, 2008. And on November 9, I do hope that every Bush-supporting Republican wakes up feeling as if they’ve been struck in the face with a baseball bat, their teeth rattling against their tonsils. Small enough retribution for the damage they’ve done my country.</p>
<p>And that will be only Act II. Three more acts to go to make Bushists (cf. Baathists) and the neocons permanently irrelevant, free to live in whatever morally squalid enclaves that exist that support their belligerent world view, creation science, homophobic hysteria, and the rest of the rot that has come to pervade the Republican Party. I suggest that they move to Iran…they would find its current rulers to be like spirits in many dimensions.</p>
<p>Bush and the neocons played 9/11 for partisan advantage instead of uniting the country. Anyone doesn’t like the consequences now? Tough.
“Uniter not a divider” my ass. Bring 'em on. Mission accomplished.</p>
<p>Is it possible that Hillary tells neofibs about her neocon tendencies? Just a thought. :o</p>
<p><a href=“Pollster”>Pollster;
<p>This link will take you to a site called the pollster. At this site they average all of the reliable polling and present the averages in graph form.</p>
<p>“Right thing or mistake” is the issue of the polling information given in post 160.<br>
Polling information on the question of “we can achieve success in Iraq” is the issue of post number 157.</p>
<p>According to pollster, the war was “right thing “average is now 39.8%, the war was a “mistake” is now 54.1. You will also see that the graph shows that both of these average numbers have been for all intents and purposes stable for all of 2007. It appears the war was a “mistake” has dropped from an average of 56% to 54%. </p>
<p>I see nothing that would make the claim made in post number 157 “Several recent polls have actually shown that the population is moving more and more each day toward the belief that we can achieve success in Iraq” is accurate. Right thing vs. mistake and success vs. fail are two different issues and would be two different polling questions. I have not seen any recent polling on “success in Iraq,” which is the claim make. If anyone can tell me where to find the “we can achieve success in Iraq” polling information I would appreciate it.</p>
<p>“Is it possible that Hillary tells neofibs about her neocon tendencies?” </p>
<p>Cute, very cute, I’ll use the word neofibs from now on.</p>
<p>Post #164. I rest my case.</p>
<p>A feeble defense indeed. You are therefore found guilty of enabling an administration that is responsible for the moral and financial impoverishment of these United States of America, and for the unnecessary deaths of its citizens. Unfortunately we will all have to suffer the penalties for their arrogance and ineptitude.</p>
<p>Sounds like the Iraqi government is falling apart. I remember W saying, just after the invasion and occupation, something like, “They can have any kind of government they want, as long as it’s a democracy.” Who does he think he is?? And I also fault anyone who gave him the power to do this, whatever the party. It was always a bad idea; but has been compounded by a horribly bad execution.</p>
<p>It’s melting away. Why shouldn’t it? The U.S. has taken on all of the responsibilities in the so-called “surge”, buying time for the various parties to REALLY express their democratic opinions. But they remain united on one thing: they really all agree, with large majorities, that it is a good thing to kill Americans. And we seem set on providing them with the opportunities.</p>
<p>It was 6 years ago today, August 6, 2001, that the President got the memo and briefing entitled: “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/</a></p>
<p>And in other news, prior to the bridge collapse in Minnesota, Bush was threatening to veto funding for bridge repairs. The proposed $1 billion increase would have restored some of the cuts Bush has made to bridge inspection and repair during his administration. </p>
<p><a href=“CHUCK TO BUSH: DON’T ‘CROSS’ BRIDGE BILL”>CHUCK TO BUSH: DON’T ‘CROSS’ BRIDGE BILL;
<p>The ASCE reports cards that were linked to earlier demostrate that during Bush’s tenure, progress on repairing deficient bridges came almost to a halt–after over a decade of substantial progress.</p>
<p>(In fairness, it should be noted that Minnesota’s top bridge engineer says Minnesota had money to fix the problems it had identified with the bridge, it just decided not to.)</p>
<p>Well, when do we get a democracy? I refer to the Supreme Court’s deciding the 2000 election. And I don’t think it’s in a spirit of justice or fairness that we used the pathetic WMD excuse (remember the twinkie defense) to justify muscling into and occupying another country. Last time I checked we had the largest arsenal of WMD in the world. Should the USA be invaded and occupied? And yes, Democrats had these misguided ideas as well, but they weren’t the cheerleaders.</p>
<p>These grown men and women aren’t able to resist peer pressure? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Btw, don’t the Dems control funding for the war? Why haven’t they pulled the plug yet? Those big bad Republicans forcing them not to? The only people I remember even suggesting this were Feingold–and Kucinich.</p>
<p>Please contact your congressperson. The whining is unbearable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. I had no idea that people were not aware that a simple majority of the Senate is not the same thing as control.</p>
<p>When the Democrats try to set limits on Iraq, the Republicans insist on filibustering–which means 60 votes are needed even to bring the legislation to a vote. Without 60 votes, you can’t even vote. So a minimum of 60 votes is needed to get legislation passed. The Democrats do not control 60 votes. The Republicans are now threatening a permanent and automatic filibuster on all Iraq legislation. Even if one could pass that hurdle, one would still need a veto-proof majority to accomplish what one set out to do.</p>
<p>This is just Civics 101. Every American over 18 should know this.</p>
<p>In addition, it’s quite clear that cutting funding for the troops will not bring them home. Bush himself said so: he told the American Legion that if Congress didn’t fund the troops, he would have to do “unacceptable” things to the troops, but would not bring them home. (The next day it was revealed that the administration planned to do those unacceptable things anyway, regardless of what Congress did).</p>
<p>Additionally, I think you’re confusing the parties. It’s the Republicans in Congress and the administration who oppose body armor, armored vehicles, equitable pay raises, adequate rest and training, and decent health care for the troops in wartime. Don’t expect us to pick up your habits just because we picked up your seats.</p>
<p>“And yes, Democrats had these misguided ideas as well, but they weren’t the cheerleaders.”</p>
<p>Actually, it WAS the Democrats clamoring for military attacks on Iraq. I’ve posted the quotes from Biden, Levin, Gore, etc. previously. And in February 1998, leading up to the largest U.S. bombing of any country (after we kicked out the weapons inspectors) since Viet Nam. You won’t find any Republicans, as far as I am aware, clamoring for a military attack on Iraq in February 1998. </p>
<p>“Wow. I had no idea that people were not aware that a simple majority of the Senate is not the same thing as control.”</p>
<p>Sorry. They - or actually two people - Pelosi and Reid - have COMPLETE control. They don’t have to bring a military funding bill for Iraq up for a vote. Ever. Every American over 18 should know this. They have absolute control of military appropriations - and if Bush threatens to use other funds, they don’t have to bring budget continuation resolutions to the floor either.</p>
<p>Pathetic cowards. The most experienced diplomat in the race for President - Richardson - says we can get ALL troops and equipment safely out of Iraq within six months. Instead the Dems are going to end up up with a messy non-withdrawal over their heads when one of them takes office.</p>
<p>So it’s choice - they can take on the President now, or become as irrelevant as the Republicans the year they take office.</p>
<p>Good for third parties. ;)</p>
<p>That’s different from “pulling the plug”–defunding what’s been authorized already. They couldn’t do that without a veto-proof majority.</p>
<p>And it wouldn’t bring the troops home. They’d die of dehydration in the desert first. </p>
<p>3000 soldiers, give or take, dead from car bombs, and the adminstration wouldn’t fund mine resistent armored vehicles, because doing so would conflict with their spin that the insurgency was in its last throes and an end to the occupation was just one F.U. away.</p>
<p>If “they die” in the desert, they aren’t around to be brought home.</p>
<p>The Dems don’t need a veto-proof majority. They need one courageous leader out of two possible, neither of whom ever expects to run for higher office. Every American over 18 should know that the Democrats have made a decision to continue the hostile, aggressive occupation, much as they decided to kill half a million Iraqi children. (“we think it was worth it,” she said.)</p>
<p>I’m not holding my breath for the spineless wonders. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, I’m waiting for more commitments from Democrats on this list to support medical supplies for Iraqi children. Can I count on you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually no Republican(or Democrat for that matter) has ever voted against body armor for the troops. All US troops in Iraq have had the bullet-stopping Interceptor body armor since January 2004. But more importantly, the shortages that existed for the first eight or nine months of the Iraq conflict weren’t the fault of Congress. The shortages that plagued some units in Iraq for the first few months of the war were due not to a lack of money, but to the inability of Pentagon contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet the sudden spike in demand, and problems getting the gear shipped to the troops.</p>
<p>If we adopted Instant Runoff Voting or something similar, we wouldn’t be locked in this ridiculous 2 party system. We need a change. I’m not happy with either party right now.</p>