October 12, 2005
Average American Now "Loves Saddam", "Hates America"
There are certain things you can always say on this website and count on being accused of comforting the enemy, having a pathological hatred of Bush, or, worst of all, being a “liberal”. But polls show that a funny thing has happened on the way to conservatives taking over the universe: the average American has become an treasonous, Bush-hating, terrorist-coddling (all in the the conservative mind, of course) liberal.
Consider this striking CBS News poll on Iraq. Not only do nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq war, but 59% think the US should “leave Iraq as soon as possible”. Most Americans are now substantially more anti-Iraq-war than John Kerry was during his presidential campaign. (He just talked about reducing the number of troops under certain conditions.)
Some of you probably think this poll was cooked up by Dan Rather, but consider this Zogby poll. 45% of likely voters indicated that Bush is doing a “Poor” job with Iraq. Poor. Not pretty good. Not an A for effort, or a even a B or a C. And it is not just Iraq. Bush is getting marked “Poor” or “Fair” on almost everything. Bush is even in trouble among NASCAR fans. (And as John Kerry supposedly-but-not-really said, who among us doesn't enjoy NASCAR?)
I know that I am going to hear the argument that the Democrats are too inept to really take advantage of Bush's weakness. That could be true, but it is really not my point. What I think these polls demonstrate is that views that posters on this board routinely label “Bush-bashing” or “left-wing” (or other, less polite, formulations) now make up the mainstream of public opinion.
Posted by Woody Mena at October 12, 2005 09:36 PMWhat an embarrassment for the Democrats. A full 25% of them believe that Hussein had direct involvement in 9/11. That’s atrocious.
I was, however, not surprised that nearly half of the wrong-thinking Republicans believe the same fairy tale.
Posted by: Burt at October 12, 2005 10:03 PMThe Conservatives are already laying the blame for the losing Republican War in Iraq on the Liberals. You can see it more and more in the Red Column.
Posted by: Aldous at October 12, 2005 10:30 PMWhat an embarrassment for the Democrats. A full 25% of them believe that Hussein had direct involvement in 9/11. That€™s atrocious.
Apparently some Democrats watch Fox too…
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 12, 2005 10:31 PMYeah, I had those all written up when I saw the “Aiding al Qa’ida” post in the Right column. Ironic really: They accuse us of being more afraid of Bush than of the terrorists, but they have their knickers in knots over the likes of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy.
That last response was for Aldous’s comment about the Red Column…
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 12, 2005 10:37 PMNobody’s gonna make the argument that Bush is soaring in the polls right now, but the polls about Iraq have gone up and down before.
59% say that we should “leave Iraq as soon as possible?” I must say I’m surprised that the number is so low because Bush himself has always said that we should leave Iraq as soon as possible and that we won’t be able to stick around and provide 100% security forever for Iraq’s fledgling democracy.
And it’s completely possible to support the war and not be satisified with its conduct. I’m in that category myself.
Posted by: sanger at October 12, 2005 11:29 PMWoody -
What you are saying is true. It’s been the mantra of many on the right whenever they have no specific disagreement with the left. It’s like when someone wishes to really hurt someone, they say the meanest thing that they can think of, even if they know it’s not true. Also a trick used to get someone angry and draw them into some idiotic argument that they would not ordinarily take part in.
They know those mean-spirited things that they say are not true. They’re just angry that we are criticizing “their guy”.
And, to be honest, I’ve seen some of it going the other way, too. Neither side is pure. But you’re correct. It comes from the right much more often than from the left.
Oh yeah, and let’s not forget the often-heard right wing chant that “Democrats NEVER have any ideas of their own, and ONLY bash EVERYTHING that the Republicans come up with.”
Posted by: Cole at October 13, 2005 12:19 AMI have an idea!!! My idea is to kick the Republicans out, put our people in and THEN start thinking of ways out of the Republican War!!!
Brilliant?
Posted by: Aldous at October 13, 2005 01:11 AMCole,
Very true. I’m aware the Democrats are working the liberal equivalent of a ‘Contract for America,’ and that’s smart. But right now it’s better to keep quiet, sideline ideas, and let the conservatives implode.
It’s a remarkable implosion, especially when considering no impetus has been provided by the Dems, no politically motivated special prosecutors, little help from the corporate news media; the conservative meltdown has been entirely self-inflicted.
While Miers will be confirmed, it’s an awful nomination, one that leaves everyone, left right or center, feeling tainted just by being subjected to it. Ugh. DeLay is trouble. Frist is under investigation by the SEC (and that’s one I really don’t get- I mean, am I missing something, or is Frist just incredibly, extremely stupid, or that greedy?). And Iraq… and a stock market STILL underwater from the first term inauguration… and so on.
Let the chickens come home to roost. No point in trying to shout over the squawking, no point casting pearls to swine. Wait for the moderate Republicans to abandon the Neo-cons and social conservatives to their self-imposed squalor, and offer political refuge, practical ideas.
Posted by: phx8 at October 13, 2005 01:21 AMphx8 et al
I hope the Dems do come up with some kind of contract with America. Let’s see what they want to do.
I am a partisan and you can consider the source, but I honestly have not seen anything new or useful out of the Dems since the Clinton DLC things of the 1990s. As everyone who reads this blog regularly knows, I defend Clinton and that is why. The Clintonistas had some positive ideas.
The Dems have a more serious problem than the Republicans. You have the Clinton type Dems pushed around by the looney moveon.org Dems. You Phx8 strike me as one of the former. You have to get a handle on the latter, whose only love is Bush Bashing. Those are the guys making most of the noise. You can’t win elections with those guys in the front, no matter how much the Republicans mess up.
Posted by: Jack at October 13, 2005 06:51 AMWoody,Aldous and Burt
You guys alway start my morning off the right way…with a chuckle….as I read your tripe.
First off,losing the war?
What war?
Iraq?
Ya,right.
Tomorrow a constitution will be ratified and in December another election will be held.
Since the start of the year,Iraq had its first election,now the above.
Lose the war?
Since the start of the year,Iraq security forces have now 1 level 1 battalion in the field and 13 battalions approaching level 1 status…all told 123,000 Iraqui security personnel are now in the field and every day the number grows.
Losing the war?
The esprit d’corp has never been higher in Iraq by our brave serviceman..our all volunteer serviceman…re-enlistments have never been higher.
Losing the war?
16 of the 18 provinces are completely under control.Ground intelligence has improved probably 10 fold,hospitals,schools,pumping stations,roads,infra structure have been built.
Losing the war?
Iraq is pumping oil and now protecting their pipelines..with Iraqi security personell??
Losing the war?
Al Quida’s second in command is now begging Al Queda in Iraq for money…Bin Laden is still in a hole somewhere,marginalized,and two thirds of his leadership dead or imprisioned.
Losing the war?
More and more Americians now realize the terror threat is real and the viciousness of the Wahabbi sect apparent.Nationially over 200 HIGH SCHOOLS and SEVENTY colleges are offering Arabic studies cources…triple the number of one year ago.
Losing the war?
THe WORLD know knows(even FRANCE and GERMANY..one of which threw out their leadership and the other receiving a slap in the face over ratification of the EU constitution) that Iran and Syria now join Saudi Arabia as the true terror nations.
Losing the war?
More Anericans have turned away from the biased liberal press(The NY Times has begun laying off people),the national news networks liberal bias have resulted in allowing Fox News to be watched by double the number of Americans that CNN and MSNBC COMBINED.
Please.
You guys (and I will throw David,Pundit and Stephen in here) are so hateful of the Admisistration that it doesn’t really matter what progress has been made..you(collectively as a politicial philosophy) would only continue to spew out hateful vindictives on a daily basis and castigate the administration even if Jesus Christ,Budda,the Phrophet,Moses,or Abraham were the president.
Burt doesn’t believe that we are in a World War…we have crossed swords on that issue her in the past…and neither does a significant majority of the left.
To prove the point,I ask each of you:Aldous,Woody,Burt,David,Pundit,Stephen,and anyone else to anwser one single question:
Are we or are we not in a world war against terror?
Just that question without the bull.
All it requires is a yes or no answer.
Well?
in
I disagree phx8.
I think it’s imperitive that liberal America goes on the attack.
And I don’t mean merely pointing out the many flaws of neo con in general and the administration specifically.
I mean we must represent liberalism with positive alternatives to failed neo con policy, not merely saying we wouldn’t do what they’re doing.
We have to take back congressional seats in the mid terms and take back the houses (senate, representative, and WHITE) in 2008. And we have to start IMMEDIATELY.
These polls prove Lincoln’s adage that some can be fooled all the time, and everyone can be fooled some of the time… Many of those who were fooled by the administration during the first term have had their eyes opened by the glaring failures and corruption of neo con.
All we have to do is give those middle-of-the-roaders a reason to turn blue
Are we or are we not in a world war against terror?
no
“Are we or are we not in a world war against terror?”
Please prove the connection between Iraq and Terror? Hell, go ahead and define ‘terror’. Is terror fighting for your homeland?
Also - how do you fight a war on terror? Do you fight it within the borders of a single country? Race? Religion?
Posted by: tony at October 13, 2005 08:06 AMSicilian Eagle,
I don’t want to attack the messenger, so I’ll just say thing this another, er, interesting post. Whether *I* think we are losing the war is besides the point. It appears that most everyone thinks that we are either losing or going nowhere, so you will have to aim your anger at a wider audience.
Sanger,
Here is the whole question: “Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?”
If you look at the other questions they show opposition to the conduct of the war and the war itself.
Jack,
The “looney moveon.org Dems” are precisely the people who most vocally opposed the Iraq War. My point is that their “looney” foreign policy outlook is now mainstream.
If you look at the 2004 election, Kerry did have detailed policy proposals. Alas, he did not do a very good job of communicating them. The GOP has an advantage here because they have several big themes that are easy to communicate, like cutting everyone’s taxes (if you pay federal income tax). The Democrats have been specializing in piecemeal social engineering, which takes more ability to explain.
Thom Houts,Woody et al.
Woody…yes or no?Don’t give me the old Jesuit “ask a question with a question ” routine..just asnwer the question please and we can progress from there.
At least Thom Houst answered the question…wrongly…but anwsered it nonethless.
After I smoke out a few more answers(Burt..where are you?Aldous?Pundit?Stephen Daughtery? …I will answer….this will be an interesting day.
Jack-
You proceed from the false assumption that many people feel Bush bashing is irrational at this point. The polls show a majority of people feel otherwise.
What crippled the Democrats more than a decade ago was this same set of sentiment that Republicans have now, that they are entitled to be a majority, that they represent America’s center, and that the other side doesn’t have the candidates to win.
The problem is, nobody’s entitled to power in this country, nor are they entitled to have the trust and faith of the majority. Additionally, recent research has show that Republicans actually skew to the right of the average American, and that the solid organization of their party has been more responsible for their victories than any ideological affinity.
Last, but not least, believing that Democrats don’t have the candidates to succeed is nothing less than a gamble, and a potential underestimation of the other side.
You might consider some of us Democrats looney, but since your president has done such a good job of screwing up his policies, we have the advantage of being able to point to any number of situations and saying “There, Bush’s leadership is lacking.”
And we would be vindicated by the evidence. You and others have been taken in by the notion that there is nothing behind the facade of Bush-Bashing, that people don’t honestly think that the president is such a bad leader. You guys think we simply envy his power.
Taken in by this con, Republicans have defended everything the president has done, which taken together is a defense of nothing. Nobody is perfect, and when nobody will admit a mistake by the president, people start to wonder what the Republicans are so desperate to protect. The spectacular, public failures of this president have provided an all too disturbing answer to that question.
SE-
Don’t tear your rotator cup patting yourself on the back. First, that would prevent you from typing (a loss to this site), and second, it’s not justified.
Begun turning away from the biased liberal press. Hmmm. Did you stop for a moment to consider how much water the so-called liberal NY Times has been carrying for your president? What do you think that whole cozy relationship with Judith Miller was about, first about WMDs in Iraq, then about the Rove Leak?
Moreover, are you just buying the marketing of FOXnewsAccording to this article, Fox’s high ratings are average ratings bouyed up by their large viewership for their opinion programming.
Cumulative Ratings show that more people watch CNN. What they watch it for, however, is news, and that in only chunks of a few minutes at a time. That’s why it doesn’t show up in average ratings, which indicate those who tuned in long-term, which FOXNews junkies do mainly for the O’Reilly’s and the Hannity’s.
Even then, the article says, FOX is number one in 24 Hour Cable News alone. CBS News easily gets four times its best viewership, and that’s considered bad by network news standards.
But getting to the meat of the issue, I’d say this: don’t count your chickens until their hatched. They’re still killing people at a pace of hundreds a week, and this time, the Election may not go so smoothly. This is not to say we shouldn’t do our best to win this thing, it’s just that I’m not counting on this president to have a decent plan to deal with things if it goes to hell.
Iraqi oil is not flowing that well from Iraq. According to USA Today , in this article reprinted in the Tuscon Citizen:
Iraq’s oil wells, beset by equipment problems and saboteurs, are producing about 1.9 million barrels a day in net production, lower than the 2.6 million they were producing just before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to the London-based Centre for Global Energy Studies.
Is that bad? Yes it is if you consider the following from The Heritage Foundation:
According to current estimates, the investment needed to bring Iraqi production to about 3 million barrels a day will exceed $3 billion over the next two to three years. Over the next 10 years, $35 billion-$40 billion will be needed to boost production from the current 1.2 million-1.4 million barrels per day (MBD) to the pre-1979 production level of 5-6 MBD.
Also, the conclusion mirrors what I’ve been saying all along:
Without adequate security, Iraqi oil will not reach global markets. Rebuilding the Iraqi oil sector through Western investment will not work as long as terrorists and looters are able to target technical personnel, pipelines, power lines, and other assets necessary for restarting oil production.
By liberating Iraq, the U.S. undertook an immense responsibility. Without Iraqi oil, the U.S. taxpayer will have to foot the bill for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. U.S. consumers will pay higher prices at the pump, and the U.S. and global economies will endure an indirect tax by paying higher energy prices. The alternative to restoring Iraqi oil production—misery for the Iraqi people and victory for the terrorists—is not an option.
This article was written two years ago, by the way. We’ve improved, but not to the goals set, and nowhere near the capacity Iraq once function with. We’ve only improved by a few hundred thousand barrels.
To put it quite plainly, this is my entire problem with trying to win a political victory without the benefit of military victory. Every gain we make, they can destroy and hold hostage. They can continue the misery and lack of creature comforts that turns the Iraqis more hostile to our occupation, and they can make sure that regardless of what nominal political victories we win, we’re still stuck propping Iraq up with our blood and our treasure.
We can’t win with Bush’s strategy. We can’t effectly strangle the insurgency enough to allow reconstruction efforts to produce a solid infrastructure, a solid government, and a solid military and police presence necessary to get this country independent of us.
Maybe to you, I’m merely some partisan, but I assure you that my objections to this administration have been based largely on their incompetence and stubborn insistence on getting their way in this war.
As for your World War, crack open a history book, and look at what one really looks like. Better yet, look at the occupations that followed it. Then crack open The Best and The Brightest, and prepare to feel that shiver up your spine as you realize just how many of LBJ’s mistakes Bush is replicating, especially the ones concerning debt financing a war that sent our economy into a tailspin in the seventies. While this is not Vietnam, there are mistakes made during that war that are repeated here, mistakes that are universal in nature to any war.
Read Von Clausewitz’s On War, especially the parts about not pussyfooting around with your enemy, and about how destroying enemy forces doesn’t necessarily mean victory by attrition. Read the parts where he says that regardless of what you do, you must destroy the enemies willingness and/or ability to fight. Read the parts about committing all the forces you can spare.
Watch the numerous Frontline Documentaries about how this war was planned, how it worked out, and what consequences have come about it.
In one, you’ll meet Moqtada al-Sadr, long before his forces took over Najaf. In others, you’ll see how Privatization of crucial parts of our military has affected the war effort, and how Runsfeld has changed our military strategy and not for the better.
You’ll discover just how the Neo-Cons won the battle to determine our foreign policy direction, and how the Bush administration Botched the case for war.
You’ll see a pretty balanced representation of how things really are for our Soldiers in Iraq. You’ll also see the price Iraq veterans are paying for serving their country, a price we should not underestimate going into a war.
What I get from the Republicans on this war is opinion supporting opinion, not fact supporting opinion. I have learned what I’ve learned, and am not disregarding it just in the face of mere opinion. I want a case that is more compelling than just the propaganda I’ve seen coming out of the right so far.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 13, 2005 09:25 AMSicilian eagle:
You wrote:
“you(collectively as a politicial philosophy) would only continue to spew out hateful vindictives on a daily basis and castigate the administration even if Jesus Christ,Budda,the Phrophet,Moses,or Abraham were the president.”
OH PLEASE!!!! If either of these men were president, we would DEFINITELY NOT BE AT WAR WITH IRAQ. We would have been united as a country toward the goal of healing the sick, feeding the hungry, helping your fellow man (no matter what race, or sexual orientation), loving your neighbor and finding ways to preserve this wonderous place called earth.
They would NOT be so concerned with a vast accumulation of wealth, struggling to control the lives of others, racing to see who can build the biggest, “baddest” Nuclear (that’s new-klee-er and not new-cue-lar)bomb!
JMO.
sassyliberal
Posted by: sassyliberal at October 13, 2005 09:57 AMI would like to point out how easy it is to play on the numbers provided by various polls.
Pollster John Zogby: €œPerhaps most ominous for the President in these numbers is that his re-election base has eroded. His job performance rating is now below 50% among stalwart supporters like Red State Voters (49%), and voters who are married (48%), men (46%), in armed forces households (48%), NASCAR fans (48%). Conservatives give him a 74% positive rating.€
You need to read the fine print. Those who voted against him will continue to oppose his policy. Those who may not have voted are also allowed to disapprove as all you have to say is you are likely to vote in the next election.
Another interesting point in the polling data:
Zogby International conducted interviews of 1004 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from September 29 to October 2, 2005. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.
(10/4/2005)
Who decides what weight to give the numbers Do you multiply no vote for confidence based on race by 12 when asking an african american whos voting records primarily indicate a strong Democratic party affiliation despite the Democratic Parties abandonment of the African American Society.
Do you divide by 2 each vote for confidence when polling staunch conservatives.
These polls on their face suggest a cross-section of america when in fact their numbers can be miscontrued to prove any point desired by the pollsters or readers.
Becareful of polls and what they say. I personally don’t think they mean a damn thing. The only true polling data is the final tally after elections are held.
And that we know Bush Received 50% of the vote.
Posted by: Jack-O-Lantern at October 13, 2005 10:31 AM
Sicilian Eagle,
typical neo con tactic, straight from ann coulter. Ask for a simple yes or no answer to a complex question and then say it’s wrong. HAH! What a crock.
The “war” against terror is a neo con myth perpetuated by the republicans to justify an ever increasing budget deficit. As has been pointed out, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terror. The terrorists wanted nothing to do with Hussein except that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my ally.’ Don’t even mention Iraq (better we fight the terrorists there than here) because it’s a lie.
Your so called ‘WORLD WAR ON TERROR’ has been reduced to exactly what it was when Bill Clinton was in office… a matter of criminal investigation, apprehension, and prosecution. And Bill Clinton’s administration was infinitely more successful at it than the pathetic coward in the White House now.
Sicilain Eagle,
Please answer the following simple question with a date. Only a date answer is allowed. The question is:
When did you stop beating your wife?See? I can use your tactics, too! Posted by: ElliottBay at October 13, 2005 11:13 AM
SE,
No. We are not in the middle of a World War on Terror.
We’re not even in the middle of a war in Iraq. The war ended long ago - very succesfully. We’re now in the middle of a long, drawn-out occupation.
As far as I can tell, the “War on Terror” is as fictional as the “War on Drugs” and just about as equally effective. Just because Fox News has a lot of pretty graphics that say “War on Terror” doesn’t make it true.
When this simpleton President actually decides to go after Bin Laden, I’ll believe he’s serious about capturing terrorists. Until then, the administration and all those who support him blindly such as yourself are the ones aiding Al Qaeda. We’ve heard before the old line that you quoted that 2/3rds of Al Qaedas “top leadership” have been captured or killed. Even if that’s true, how many new recruits do you suppose have been brought in to replace them? Are you naive enough to believe that they can’t replace these people?
You’re willing to acknowledge that the President has been wrong in government spending. Acknowledge that he’s not doing the right things to combat terrorists and we can all move forward for the better of the country and the world.
Posted by: Burt at October 13, 2005 11:23 AMJack:
“You have the Clinton type Dems pushed around by the looney moveon.org Dems.”
Oh you must mean the Republican Lite Dem’s as opposed to the Actual Liberal Dem’s. Well good luck winning elections by acting like a weaker version of the opposing party kids, because it hasn’t been winning you anything lately. It also means you’ll have to always run a candidate who has the same devastating charisma and ability to communicate as Bill has — though I must warn you, that kind of charm doesn’t grow on trees.
“You Phx8 strike me as one of the former. You have to get a handle on the latter, whose only love is Bush Bashing.”
That’s right, just keep being exceedingly polite and perfectly respectful in the face of the RNC Slime Machine. That’ll make everyone think your elegant manners are the best! In fact, even when they attack your military record when their guy went AWOL, don’t come out angrily swinging — just act the strong silent type, and expect everyone to understand that what they say simply isn’t true.
“Those are the guys making most of the noise.”
The Actual Liberal Dem’s? Maybe that’s because they’ve been RIGHT from the very beginning about this war, but just kept being called “loony”.
But wait, now I get it — you guys only like those who are Dead Wrong about everything! So that’s why you love Bush so much… Hey, I finally figured it out! You guys are totally in love with failure.
“You can€™t win elections with those guys in the front,”
Oh, sure. Don’t put any clear differences in front of the voting public. People really love having to choose between two things that are almost exactly alike. And after all, it’s been such a winning strategy.
“no matter how much the Republicans mess up.”
Yeah, might as well just give up now, because they’re completely Untouchable! See, they can be Dead Wrong about Everything, but when they hose down your GOP-Lite Moderate with their high powered RNC Slime Machine, your elegant ‘n’ impecably mannered candidate simply doesn’t stand a chance.
:^) That was fun.
Well you guys, I’m off to Vermont for the next five days to look at the brilliantly changing autumn leaves. So until we meet again, happy posting to all, and to all a good blog…
Bill Clinton€™s administration was infinitely more successful at it than the pathetic coward in the White House now.
Thom, I’d love to see some data on that. Got any links that show how many actual terrorists were apprehended during Clintons watch as opposed to Bush’s?
Posted by: BradM at October 13, 2005 11:31 AMAre we or are we not in a world war against terror?
I wish.
If America were really at war, the Republican Congress would heed Democrat’s call to authorize 100,000 new troops to crush al Qaeda in Iraq and train 2,000 more special operations troops to root out bin Laden wherever he’s hiding.
I don’t know what President Bush thinks he’s doing, but he’s not fighting “a world war against terror”.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 13, 2005 11:47 AMSicilian,
Are we in a War on Terror? No. It effectively ended with the capture of Sheik Khalid Mohommed @ two years ago. But I’ve already posted on this, so will not repeat.
The Invasion & Occupation of Iraq is a separate matter. Terrorism is involved as part of an insurgent strategy of asymmetrical warfare, with support from foreign jihadists playing a significant role. You could make a case that Iraq IS the War on Terror, but I don’t think that’s accurate. Neither OBL nor Al Qaida have any history of involvement in Iraq. Zarqawi calls his group Al Qaida in Iraq, and claims allegiance to OBL, but Zarqawi’s group has different aims, and focuses on a nation & hatred of Shias in a way never exhibited by OBL’s Al Qaida. Two different situations…
Stephen,
Thank you for taking the time to refute Sicilian’s points in detail.
Jack,
Really, I don’t fit any party’s agenda that well. I despise the Bush administration, but never cared much for Kerry. You’d have to look long & hard thru the election threads to find me supporting the Kerry campaign. In general terms I’m likely to support Democrats, usually the liberal wing, and sometimes the Greens.
The truth? Sorry, fellow libs. I don’t care for MoveOn, not at all. Too negative too often. Negativity works up to a point, negativity works very well, as Rove’s successes demonstrate. It ultimately fails, as Rove’s impending fate suggests. Non-stop campaign divisiveness hurts in the long run more than it helps. Succeeding as a country means more than half pulling together.
Posted by: phx8 at October 13, 2005 12:21 PMOh come on guys, I think the Sicilian ChickenHawk is actually right. Let’s wage war against all of the middle east (it’s full of terrorist), let’s not forget the philipines, a lot of micronesia, Pakistan, Sudan, Chad, Libya, North Korea, those sections of England where those terrorist lived, oh and lets not forget about Florida. Let’s invade them all, make them democratic (if they’re already democratic we’ll make them democratic again), and then occupy them for an indefinet amount of time. My kids don’t really need that much of a government when they grow up anyway.
Posted by: chantico at October 13, 2005 12:52 PMEven more intersting is the Ipso Impeach Poll -
By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.
The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:
“If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.”
44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.
Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.
“The results of this poll are truly astonishing,” said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. “Bush’s record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush’s policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House.”
Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups
Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.
Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.
Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1011-12.htm
Posted by: anon-o-mouse at October 13, 2005 02:11 PMTo all my friends:Woody,Burt,Pundit,Stephen,px,elliotbay,and every one else that I gave indigestion to in my earlier post….thank you for responding.
Maybe now we can have some dialogue.
(I will start with Stephen as I think he is the mosty insightful thinker on this blog,and one certainly capable of being rehabilitated):
1.I assume you were kidding about me being a loss to this site.It’s far more exilirating watching a back and forth occur between those with differing views than simply reading time an again a bunch of posts from same line thinkers collectively crying in their soup,thus I take your comment in that spirit.
2.Regarding the NY Times:Please….for the last 3 decades that I have been reading that paper,I have had to lean to the left in order to read that paper.For you to say that it doesn’t have a liberal bias is just plain silly.Their motto says it all: “All the news that fits,we print”
Please.
3.Iraq oil:
Jesus,the fact that are pumping anything is a miracle,I think.Just the fact that they are producing only 500,000 barrels less that pre-invasion levels is cause to celebrate,not bitch about.Your articles prove my point.
4.Regarding reading books…well that’s an insult,don’t you think?
I attended law school,have practiced law for decades,teach at three law schools,live and have an office in Europe,own an import company,own an internet company,wrote 4 books,one screenplay,and get 5 grand a lecture.I have forgotten more than you know,Stephen.
Of course I would never bring that up in this forum though.
Suffice to say that I am profoundly well read on history.
By the way,that Frontline piece(as most of their work)is useless.How about a non-biased source.How silly of you to quote that piece.Why don’t you also quote Howard Dean?
Here are facts Stephen:Saddam is in jail.Osama is in a cave.The Iraqi people will ratify a constitution tomorrow.Oil is being pumped at a rate of 1.5 million barrels a day.Kurds are no longer being gassed.Freedom is dawning there.
Facts.Show me where there is “opinion” there.
Elliot Bay
As a survivor of child abuse,you should be ashamed of that post about beating my wife.Nothing is funny on that subject.If you want to talk politics fine,but that type of stuff is nonsense.
Finally..calling me a neo-con?C’mon…although I do think Anne Coulter is kinda cute in a Republician sort of way.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 13, 2005 03:16 PMHere are facts Stephen:Saddam is in jail.
True! Fact.
Osama is in a cave.
Opinion.
The Iraqi people will ratify a constitution tomorrow.
Opinion.
Oil is being pumped at a rate of 1.5 million barrels a day.
Fact. Also fact: less than before the war.
Kurds are no longer being gassed.
Also fact: the world is not flat. Both are old news and irrelevent to the discussion.
Freedom is dawning there.
Opinion.
I do think Anne Coulter is kinda cute
Opinion. And a horrible one at that.
Sicilian Eagle,
I’m not ashamed of having asked you anything. When you start out a post with an insult (calling everyone’s comments “tripe”), you have no right to complain when someone responds in kind.
Regarding your silly NY Times/Frontline comment: If you are as “intelligent” as you claim to be, you will have read (as I have) the various studies about the supposed “liberal bias in the news media”, and you will have noticed (as I have) that the studies agree that there is, for the most part, no such thing. Nice spin, though - it enables you to attack the messengers (in this case the NY Times & Frontline) and at the same time ignore the issues they raise.
1. There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11. None. Even President Bush has said so.
2. There was no significant connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The bi-partisan 9-11 commission said so.
3. The sanctions were doing exactly what they were intended to do - preventing Saddam from re-arming himself. Saddam had no WMD, no program to re-build WMD, and did not pose a threat to this country or to his neighbors. Both Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice said so before 9-11.
4. If the reason for invading Iraq all along was to spread democracy and freedom, why didn’t Colin Powell mention it in his justification of the war to the UN? I’ve read his speech - he didn’t mention either word one time.
5. The “Bush Doctrine” (yet another justification for the war) was that the US has the right to pre-emptively attack any other country, if we think that country might someday become a threat - even if they don’t pose a direct threat at the time. If other countries use that same doctrine, China (or North Korea, or Iran, or even Canada) would have the right to attack this country tomorrow, and use the Bush Doctrine as its justification.
6. There is some evidence that Bush had decided to go to war with Iraq before 9-11, and in fact before he was elected. Mickey Herskowitz, the man Bush had originally hired to write his autobiography (“A Charge To Keep: My Journey To The White House”), has been quoted as saying that George Bush was considering an Iraq invasion - for the purpose of seizing and holding political power for himself and the Republican Party - during his first presidential election campaign. Here’s the source.
So the president and his cronies committed this country’s most valuable resource (the lives of our brave service people) to an invasion of Iraq that had NO connection to the REAL war on terror (and in fact was and continues to be a distraction from the REAL war on terror). The invasion and occupation is costing hundreds of billions of dollars that SHOULD be spent making this country safer from terrorists. With this financial drain, the Bush administration is accomplishing EXACTLY what Osama bin Laden’s stated goals - bleeding this country dry economically. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is distracting us from our REAL job - hunting down the terrorists and their leaders and bringing them to justice. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is killing tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and is enabling terrorist organizations around the world to recruit more and more people. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has isolated us from our allies and driven more and more people into the arms of our enemies. Effectively, the Bush administration is making this country weaker and our enemies stronger.
I’m all for a war on terror. Unfortunately, this administration has proven incapable of fighting it.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 13, 2005 04:55 PMElliotBay
My wife had 3 brain aneurisms.
I’d rather eat tripe(a Roman soup made from beef)or even read tripe,than see anyone suffer what she went thru,believe me.
1.Wrong.If there was no direct connection,then they were car pooling.Al Queda’s top lietenant,now running the show in Iraq,received medicial treatment while Saddam was in power.If no direct connection,then many many indirect connections.
2.See above.
3.Isreali Mossad,Russian intelligence,Egyptian intelligence,Scotland yard,Jordanian intelligence,and your CIA director tell you it’s a “slam dunk” that Sadam has WMD’s.To do nothing would have been criminally negligent.
Sanctions?Saddam wiped his butt with those sanctions.Please.
4.Spreading Democracy and freedom is a by product of the fall of Saddam.Our problem is that we didn’t plan for the peace.Bremer screwed up by dismissing the military…thousands of mistakes were made…so what…it’s called the fog of war…
5.I agree with the doctrine.”Let them hate,so long as they fear” Cicero.
We need to obliterate the lunitic fanatics who have hi-jacked a peaceful religion.
6.Partisian bullshit
Can you close your eyes and tell me the five pillars of Islam without resorting to a google search?
If you cannot(and only you know the answer)you are ill-versed to discuss the issue of radicial Islam,and need to fundamentally understand exactly what we are up against.
If you can name the five pillars for me(us),I will be happy to respond to your follow-up post.
Last month I wrote a bunch of posts on that subject here and far and away many concluded that they cannot recite or even name bacis ABC stuff like the above question to you.
Please.
You guys (and I will throw David,Pundit and Stephen in here) are so hateful of the Admisistration that it doesn€™t really matter what progress has been made..you(collectively as a politicial philosophy) would only continue to spew out hateful vindictives on a daily basis and castigate the administration even if Jesus Christ,Budda,the Phrophet,Moses,or Abraham were the president.
Jesus Christ would be hated by the GOP
turn the other cheek—-soft on crime
hanging out with prositutes and other criminals while espousing love and tolerance—bleeding heart liberal
Posted by: Frankie Bruchis at October 13, 2005 05:45 PMIf you can name the five pillars for me(us),I will be happy to respond to your follow-up post.
At least you’re not requiring him to prove that his genitals are sufficiently large enough to be worthy to hang out with you.
Oh wait… metaphorically, you are.
Never mind.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 13, 2005 06:05 PMCBS News poll on Iraq
but consider this Zogby poll.
Perhaps you remember the so called polls of last Nov. election
“John Kerry wins in Ohio”
Your polls are skewed.
No self respecting Conservative republican is going to answer a bunch of stupid questions asked by a Liberal pollster.
As for winning the war on terror, we are well on the way.
I submit the weakened state of our country at the time of the hurricane Rita.
Just having gone through Katrina and with the roads in east Texas and
Louisiana a big parking lot, al qaida is impotent.
.
This is not really on point, but I couldn’t another place for it.
Is the Bird Flu panic another Karl Rove Special to take ink from the Bush Bashing?
Consider this: birds have been having flu for a million years. They had a big one in 1918. What makes 2005 different from 1995 or 1985? Rove always needs someone or something for us to fear. Is this the fear of the month? The timing is good for 43.
My wife had 3 brain aneurisms.I’m sorry for your wife. But that doesn’t excuse you for passing insults off as “dialog.”
1.If there was no direct connection,then they were car pooling.Al Queda€™s top lietenant,now running the show in Iraq,received medicial treatment while Saddam was in power.If no direct connection,then many many indirect connections.Are you calling President Bush a liar? He said there was no connection. And what does someone getting medical attention in Iraq have to do with Iraq’s involvement in 9-11? To use your ‘logic’, if I happen to be passing through Egypt on my way to Iran, stop to get medical treatment, and then continue on my journey and blow up a mosque in Tehran, Iran would be justified in invading Egypt because I sought medical attention there. Get real. You’ve shown NO evidentiary link. And I thought you were a lawyer.
Here’s another connection: the word “Iraq” ends in AQ and the word “Qaeda” starts with QA. Put ‘em together and you have AQQA, which is suspiciously similar to ABBA, so the rock group ABBA must be behind 9-11 too! Ridiculous? You bet. But it’s about as substantive as anything you’ve suggested so far.
3.Isreali Mossad,Russian intelligence,Egyptian intelligence,Scotland yard,Jordanian intelligence,and your CIA director tell you it€™s a €œslam dunk€ that Sadam has WMD€™s.To do nothing would have been criminally negligent.SOMETHING WAS BEING DONE. Iraq was under sanctions that, according to THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ITSELF were working. Weapons inspectors were scouring Iraq looking for WMD and/or evidence that Saddam had re-started his WMD program. They didn’t get a chance to finish because Dubyah told ‘em to leave so he could invade. What was the rush? Why couldn’t the inspectors be allowed to finish? Right after the “major combat operations” ended in Iraq, several thousand US troops were ordered to look for WMD. They didn’t find anything either.
The simplest explanation for the FACT that nobody has been able to find either WMD or a program to reconstitute them is that they didn’t exist at the time of the invasion. And Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the right one.
Sanctions?Saddam wiped his butt with those sanctions.Please.High quality “dialog”, dude. It really proves your superior intellect. And are you calling Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice liars? They said the sanctions were working.
4.Spreading Democracy and freedom is aReally? That’s not what the Bush administration is saying. They say that spreading freedom was their main goal all along. Are you agreeing with me that they didn’t give the American people the real reason for invading Iraq?
by product of the fall of Saddam.
Our problem is that we didn€™t plan for the peace.Bremer screwed up by dismissing the military€thousands of mistakes were made€so what€it€™s called the fog of war€I agree that mistakes were made, but you can’t excuse a total lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq as the “fog of war”. That lack of planning was a COLOSSAL failure, something akin to the Allies planning the D-Day invasion, but not planning on what to do after that.
5.I agree with the doctrine.€Let them hate,so long as they fear€ Cicero.So did Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Pol Pot. You’re in great company.
6.Partisian bullshitWhat a snappy comeback! Is that the best you can do? You can’t dispute something, so call it names? Great “dialog”. And “partisan” only has one “i”.
If you can name the five pillars for me(us),I will be happy to respond to your follow-up post.How inane can you get? I doubt if you’d respond anyway, because the facts don’t back you up.
If you think that intellectual put-downs and a patronizing attitude are a valid substitute for a rational, civilized discourse, I’m sorry to disappoint you. The facts are on my side, not on yours - and you haven’t bothered to present any. If you’d care to present real, verifiable facts to support your position, I’d be happy to discuss them with you.
By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush€™s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The term ‘grassroots’ is code for neolib.
And we all know the margority of people they pole are neolibs.
I have been watching polls and elections since 1976. Although polling techniques have improved, most polls are worse, since they are very often set up to prove a point rather than seek the truth. The only poll that really counts is the one held on Election Day. Everything else is commentary on that.
It may be possible that Dems will do well in the next election. I doubt it because there is no logical reason to believe it. Polls show general dissatisfaction, but general opinions don’t decide elections. When you drill down to specific races, you can’t identify many Republicans in danger. In fact, Dems have more vulnerabilities in specific races.
I would prefer a moderate Republican or Democrat. The difference is that Republicans CAN play to their base because their base is stronger. Democrats have to appeal to the middle. They were successful with Bill Clinton and they brag about him all the time. They seem to forget that he was a moderate. Liberal Dems felt he leaned too far to the right. Some of my liberal friends actually cried over things like welfare reform and NAFTA.
Since I am an American first and a Republican second, I would prefer that Dems make themselves competitive in elections. We need balance. If they play to the liberal base, they are not competitive. Liberals love liberal ideas, but it is autoerotic. They believe that conservatives somehow trick the people into voting for them. The fact is that most Americans are not liberal. That is why Republican arguments work with them.
So if the Dems lurch to the left, they will lose. And they do their country no favors by eliminating what good ideas they do have from the ruling DNA.
I must agree that polls really don’t matter much. Especially when they don’t go along with your opinions. Though it is true that the only poll that really counts is the election. This is all the more reason that we should all be protesting Bush’s war and call for an immediate impeachment. Bush and his oil buddies could care less about America.
Hopefully, enough Americans now realize that the Republican GOP is corrupt, so we can turn this country back in the right direction. As for Saddam, yes he was a bad man, but so is a little sawed off dictator in North Korea. You don’t see anyone going after him. HMM? Maybe because they don’t have enough oil?
Posted by: Darby at October 13, 2005 10:27 PMRon,
I have really no knowledge of this AfterDowingStreet .org group, but how do you know that the majority of people they poll are neolibs, whatever that is.
Do they ask people if they are neolibs, and if they are, do not record thier views? I would like to know.
Have any of you ever seen that picture of donald rumsfeld giving a big sloppy hug to that dangerous despot, that terrorist leader, who gassed his own people (with gas that we sold to them) Saddam Hussein. To that lawyer guy who read all them books and got them degrees, you’r very smart but you have no common sense,if you think this administration cares anything about anything other than putting money in their and their friends pockets. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know when you been had. and the fact that you have been conned and don’t even know it makes you an even bigger idiot. forget all your lawbooks and go rent the movie The Sting, the object of a good con is to con the people w/o them knowing that they have been conned. and you and the bush lickers that can’t admit that this man of GOD can make a mistake fit right into this category. Can you honestly say this this country is better off since the invasion of iraq? did you know that dick cheney has made a 20% profit on his halliburton stock since the invasion? do you know how much don rumsfeld has cut military spending while the right says that kerry hates the troops? how is our economy doing since the invasion? how much did you pay for gas this week? or is this something that only us dem elites worry about.I guess being a lawyer you have no problems feeding your family, or have no problems w/ the tax cuts, but what about us lowly folks, who cares about us. theres nothing more sad than watching you people being used and either too stubborn or stupid to know it. Even your own party is starting to duck for cover. the hand writing is on the wall,even your most loyal pundits(rush, ann, hannity and the like) are jumping off the band wagon, you have created a monster and the only way to save face is impeachment,surely your not too ignorant to see this coming? it’s a good thing to be smart and know the law and have all kinds of degrees, I commend you, I wish I had them too. However w/o any common sense it’s all wasted, you can spout your credentials all you want, be proud of them, but in the long run I’m sorry to say and I hate name calling but your a moron
Posted by: j savage at October 13, 2005 10:59 PMSicilian Egghead..errr..Eagle: so you want to “smoke out” more questions to reply to, huh? Lotta time on your hands? Your attempt to rouse anger and contempt to feed your “dark side”—which most Repubs thrive on as evidence their side is “winning”, see Ann Coulter—in order to “prove” yourself adept at debating is NOT going to work this time. I refuse to waste my time responding to your assinine assumptions and repetitions of the standard administration bull$#!+ propaganda.
You show your meager intelligence quotient by stating what you believe to be the TRUTH…or just your willlingness to believe the lies to maintain your fantasy of America the Greatest!
Start reading foreign newspapers: the Guardian, Independent, Asia Times, etc….you’ll get more truth from them (not including anything owned by Rupert Murdoch, of course.)
Posted by: Carri at October 14, 2005 03:36 AMP.S. Here’s to all those who honestly believe GWB *WON* the election…stop believing the lies and have some respect for yourself! Go to John Conyers website to start with for a mountain of evidence that he DID NOT WIN—at least not fair and square! The newfangled electronic voting machines that were developed and sold to the U.S. Govt by Republican-owned companies (thanks to the HAVA act, courtesy of GWB) leave no evidence whatsoever of how you voted…nor do they leave any evidence that they were tampered with by computer hacks. Very convenient for those who guaranteed “Ohio’s votes to George W. Bush in 2004”. I hope Chuck Hagel’s pleased with his contribution to the manipulation of the voting process—especially now that’s he’s grown a spine and contested the GOP party line…(if my memory serves me correctly, he helped push these machines through, made the statement about “delivering” Ohio’s votes, then ran for the senate and won—SURPRISE!…I hope he has trouble sleeping at night, realizing what forces of evil and just plain incompetency he helped empower…)
Posted by: Carri at October 14, 2005 03:54 AMThom, I€™d love to see some data on that. Got any links that show how many actual terrorists were apprehended during Clintons watch as opposed to Bush€™s?
brad you set your standards too low.
neo con can round up a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand arab looking guys and SAY they’ve apprehended as many terrorists. What say we set the bar a little higher.
How many terrorists have been apprehended, CONVICTED of terrorist acts, and have been or are being punished for those acts?
Regarding the 1993 WTC bombing.
“In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of conspiracy charges to bomb several New York City landmarks (see New York City landmark bomb plot), and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of “seditious conspiracy” to bomb the towers”
“Six militant Islamist conspirators were convicted of the crime in 1997 and 1998 and given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each.”
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/World-Trade-Center-bombing.htm
Regarding the 1998 embassy bombings.
In a federal trial in New York City that ended in June 2001, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, Mohammed Odeh, Wadih el Hage, and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed were convicted of perpetrating the Nairobi bombing and were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
Do I really need to link the accounts of American terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols?
I’ll give bush Zac Moussauoi, Iylam Faris, Richard Ried and Eric Rudolph. I think they’re well enough known that I don’t have to link them. I can’t find any more terrorist convictions to bushes credit… at least none that haven’t been overturned.
Thom,Lawn Boy,Carri et al.
Welcome to the fray.
First Carrie:
That’s Mr. Egghead to you,(although the site said critique the message,not the messanger),In your case,I will let it slide this one time.
Truth be told,I live in Europe six months a year(Sicily,Holland) and travel all over speaking to people(London,Paris,Rome,Munich),mostly communists and Islamists.
I recently returned from Munich where I spent a sobering amount of time walking ,praying and reflecting at Dachau concentration camp thinking about when madmen try to force their will on the innocents and the results it inflicts.
I have engaged many in thoughtful debate(I use this site mainy to practice purely adversatial and hostile debate,although I really have come to respect both Steve Daughtery and American Pundit’s writings…both these men truly are Americans who love their country but approach it from a completely different perspective which I respect).
Neither,by the way has ever called be an egghead.
Being an old timer I though after 9/11 that the most help I could be to my country was to engage people ,especially Radicial Muslims and communists,in a dialog….mainly by showing them that Americans are not the devil and that we too bleed,have families and want the best in this world.
Along the way,I began to study up on Radicial Islam a bit(not because I wanted to convert..I am a lasped Catholic)…. rather,as Sun Tzu said in his ancient chronicles the Art of War,”to defeat the enemy,you must become him”.
Thus I have engaged in a period now of advocating for my countries(America first,Italy second as I am a citizen of both),and do what I can because I now believe that there is a lagre faction out there,say 10% of the Muslim population…that is over 100 million people of the world’s Muslim population,who hate us ,not because of who we are,rather because of what we believe.
That number,100 million,is twice the size of Nazi Germany during WWII,and in this day and age of renagade countries potentially selling a nuke in a suitcase,frankly scared the bejesses out of me.
The first thing I learned is that (In Europe at least and probably the entire Arabian penninsula) Islam is undergoing an Islamic Reformation right now..in other words a giant fight is taking place between philosophies within that religion….and that fight did not start with 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq.
This recent fight(throughout the last 1000 years ther have many many such struggles) started again I imagine after WWII with the formation of Isreal,then continued on in Egypt with the Moslem Brotherhood,Algeria’s fight for independnce in the early to mid 50’s,and continued on with propped up governments throughout the entire Middle and Near East.
Thus,when Bin laden declared on us back before the first Trade Center bombing,the vast majority of Americans were oblivious to this hatred to us…fueled by a series of Americian imperialist admisnistrations ,big business ,and general inattention by main stream America who were too busy thinking about the Cold War,Vietnam and Watergate.
If a presidential candidate pre-Nixon said anything about the Arabian penninsula,is was in passing at best.
So we are here today,caught in the middle of a long-ranging Islamic reformation….the very type that took hold in Europe centuries ago under the guise of of the Protestant Reformation and Spanish Inquisition,when Christianity began to identify itself as a religion.
Is the president correct in all his thinking?
Lord no.
However someone in his administration (finally) realized that the threat to America today began decades ago.
Do I think the president actually knew this prior to 9/11?
Frankly.no.
He assumed the presidency as a former governor who barely got his feet wet when 9 months later 9/11 occurred.
However,(and this is where you and I disagree,)he got up to speed and learned that Iraq,Afganhistan,Palestine,Yemen,Syria,Iran all are or will become battlefields in this war…some with American participation,some without.
My view is that,in Iraq’s case,eventually it will become one area that is cleaned out of this ideology.
They have to be killed one by one…no.not the whole 100 million,just a sufficient number of the radial leadership that fuels this thought so that the remaining radicials (just like the Nazis and nationialistic Japanese eventually did) will realize with the help of mainstream Muslims that their philosophy is deficient and hopefully will fade over time…unfortunately I believe that time to be decades).
Most of the disalussioned youth of the Arabian penninsula gravitate to the philosophy now because of unemployment and realy dumb promises…like 72 virgins if martyed(no where is that found in the Koran,by the way,nor did the Phrophet ever say “Kill all the infidels”).
As that group gets educated,as they get older,as the forces of moderate Islam get stronger,as ecomomic conditions get better,as more radicial leaders get killed,this threat will gradually recede.
So,Carri,Thom et al,I may be an egghead but a principled one.
I detest the radicial right as much as I do the radicial left,and try to drill each as regularity as possible.
Our philosopies are different,that’s all.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 14, 2005 07:10 AMTo address the new topic of 2006 — There are objective reasons to believe that the Dems can do well. Consider this recent NBC / Wall Street Journal (those left-wing nuts) poll: http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm. 48% of adults prefer that Congress be controlled by Democrats, compared to 39% for Republicans. This can hardly be squared with the idea that people see Democrats as left-wing extremists.
Now, I am not claiming that this will immediately translate into a Democratic majority in Congress. Congressional seats are so gerrymandered that is hard to beat an incumbent under any circumstances. But a Democratic majority is far from impossible. Consider the breakdown offered by the Cook Political Report (http://www.cookpolitical.com/, scroll to “Political Dashboard”). If the Democrats can win the seats that “Lean” Republican (and all of the more favorable seats), they will have a majority.
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 14, 2005 08:36 AMTo clarify - by congress I meant the House of Representatives. Cook shows the Senate to be more difficult, but I think he is being too conservative (in the sense of resistance to observing change).
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 14, 2005 08:38 AM“I have engaged many in thoughtful debate(I use this site mainy to practice purely adversatial and hostile debate…”
Well, thank you for that opening, and your hysterical comments regarding other seemingly very decent people in here. It makes me feel much less guilty about the following Mr. Eagle…
You seem to be extremely concerned about making sure everyone knows your bio (methinks thou dost protest too much). Please get over yourself, it’s insufferable. Frankly, your arguments are clearly based on and inhibited by dogma and prejudice as opposed to experiential analysis and a true knowledge of history or humanity.
Your understanding of history is not nearly as good as you think it is and leads you to some very serious errors in judgement. Since the facts mean little or nothing to you I will not bother to itemize as there is little time anymore to engage with people who just refuse to open their eyes.
Now that the wheels have completely fallen off of the reactionary agenda, right wingers seem to be falling all over themselves to claim that “we have to work together”, or “why can’t we engage in a serious debate”. Given the obnoxious shouting-down of the right when we asked for just the same (the reason I include in this particular post - original poster was absolutely correct) for the past five years, these are laughable, pathetic pleas and deserve to be ignored completely. I’ve posted this sentiment before: your side blew it, big time and America has paid dearly. Our very nation is at stake now. We are in serious straits and don’t have time for your silliness and hatred. Now the adults need to take charge again. Moderates, Liberals and progressives need to push the theocrats and plutocrats (another great recent post) back into the margins where they belong and begin to undo the generations worth of damage you’ve done.
I was recently called arrogant for such sentiments. I can live with that for now. Bush sycophants whining about arrogance, that’s almost too rich for words.
BTW - it’s disillusioned, not disallusioned.
Bush’s lowest rating is still higher than the past seven presidents lowest rating. Seems that libs will do anything they can to make it look as bad as possible. Give it up. You will never win.
Posted by: gthom at October 14, 2005 12:07 PMI find it fascinating to see the excuses people will come up with to account for Bush’s slippage at the polls. The same people who trumpeted about his high approval ratings are now claiming that you can’t trust the polls.
The polls that aren’t to be trusted are the “push polls”, which were originated by Lee Atwater, A Republican dirty tricks specialist and Karl Rove’s political mentor. Atwater died in 1990 and is currently roasting in hell.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 14, 2005 01:21 PMRoger
Hit me with your best shot…fire away.
Fact is your politicial philosophy is not the majority view and hasn/t been now for a while……not does it appear to be anytime soon.
Sorry.
“Our side blew it”?
What…. the election?
Didn’t your side “blow it”…beginning with the immediate past Democratic president?
Am I missing something here or what….
Or,maybe you mean BLOWHARDS…like your fellow Democratic “lions” Ted Kennedy..or Howard Dean….both men who really embody the essence of the American spirit.
Or may you just mean that you can’t stand the fact that when someone disagrees with you he is “insufferable”
Thanks for the spelling lesson too…very much appreciated…
Now,name for me the five pillars of Islam….
Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 14, 2005 01:25 PM
Now,name for me the five pillars of Islam€.
It’s interesting. Your requirement/request of us for being worthy of debating with you is trivia knowledge. Our requirement/request of you is reasoned, respectful, intelligent dialog.
I wonder which is harder to accomplish, which is more meaningful, and which is more useful.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 14, 2005 01:35 PMFaith, prayer, charity, fasting, and a pilgrimage to Meccah.
Your turn: please explain in detail the difference between the scat of Ursus Arctos and Ursus Americanus, without using Google.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 14, 2005 03:31 PMSicilian Eagle -
Your posts sometimes aggravate me, sometimes they make me think, but they nearly always force me to reform my thoughts into different words, even if I don’t reply to you. In that respect, I guess you do me a service. Even though we disagree on many things, my position has been “rethought” on more than one occasion because of you. The bottom line is that it has also been reaffirmed.
I still do not believe that the war in Iraq was based on the war against “global terrorism” at the time that it started. However, it is now a key part of that conflict, largely due to our (Bush’s) actions.
Your resume of interactions with others in the world is admirable, but I wonder if you are not allowing your preconceived notions to alter your understanding of what they are telling you.
I don’t know the five pillars of Islam (except what I have read here), but don’t feel that it would affect my opinion that what is happening in the middle east now is largely due to our policies since just after WWI when we took part in splitting the area into countries to gain control over the oil deposits in that part of the world. Since then, we have callously imposed our interests on those in the area, and have left the citizens out in the cold. We’ve supported despots as long as it furthered our ends.
These policies, sometimes called “Corporate or Capitalist Imperialism” have set the stage for what we have today. The current administration is the poster child of that policy. They are still trying to hold on to the policy while we all pay the price for it.
The truth is that the era of oil is nearing the end of its reign. We have to aggressively look to other sources of energy in order to divest ourselves of our dependence on that part of the world. When we do that, and pull our corporate attention away from it, they will see much less of us and will be less inclined to attack.
The only other issue that will continue to cause problems there is Israel’s very existence. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what to do about that. We can’t walk away from them because we made a very profound promise to them as a people. There is a huge Jewish influence in our country that would fight their abandonment to their last breath. And probably rightly so. I don’t us want to abandon them.
But that does not change the fact that it has been conservative policies which have supported our “imperialism” in that part of the world. Sure, it has also been supported by democrats, but the impetus was always from conservative corporate (mostly oil) America.
The proof (in my opinion) of what I am saying is that several other nations are successfully, rapidly, moving to alternative sources of energy to reduce their oil-dependence, yet the US; the richest nation of all, has done very little in that direction.
HEY SICILIAN EAGLE
YOU SAY A THOUSAND MISTAKES WERE MADE AFTER THE WAR , IN YOUR WORDS “SO WHAT”. LOOK INTO THE EYES OF A MOTHER WHO JUST BURIED HER SON AND SAY SO WHAT, YOUR AN IGNORANT MISERABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING W/ NO REGARD FOR ANYONE ELSES LIFE BUT YOUR OWN. GRAB A RIFLE AND GO DEFEND YOUR PRESIDENT IF YOUR SO SURE IT’S RIGHT. THEN WHEN YOU GET BLOWN UP SOMEONE CAN TELL YOUR FAMILY SO WHAT IT’S THE FOG OF WAR. YOU PIECE OF CRAP
J.Savage
I grieve for every brave American life lost.
As for the rest of your comments,perhaps that is why the right bites back so often and hard.
Guys like you are the reason I get up in the morning….breakfast of champions…
Plus,again I thought that this site was supposed to critque the message not the messanger…
Rutus Audiorum.Latin:Stick it in your ear.(Cicero)
Elliot Bay
Never heard of the words except they have a Latin root I think.
Here is the point of even asking the question(and no,it wasn’t to show off in any way):
Alms giving has been mutated by the Wahabbi sect..specifically Saudi Arabia.Fundamenbtalist there are the problem…alms giving is the primary source of financing all terror activities in Iraq.
Strangle the money,strangle the insurrgency.
The remaining 90% of Muslims know this….I wonder how many here do.
Cole
Best post of the day.
I don’t mind if you disagree with me at all.Actually, I happen to agree with most all you wrote.
However,if I gave you pause to think even for a moment,then I am content.
Believe it or not (except for the case of that Savage guy),rationial thinkers exist all over the politicial spectrum…left,right,center.
My view on the war is profoundly different than many on this side…that is why I visit this site and post so often.
An honest exchange of ideas is the foundation of free thought.
Sicilian Eagle,
You’ve admitted, as I suspected, that you don’t know shit and are incapable of “an honest exchange of ideas.” Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 14, 2005 07:06 PMHey Folks,
Whatever happened to “Critique the Message, Not the Messenger”?
Elliot Bay
After reading your most recent post,I did in fact google the two latin phrases you wrote about…they mean nothing..they refer to latin names of different types of bears…pretty infantile to the discussion.
I will respond to your future posts when you stop being a one trick pony and decide to engage in quasi-intelligent conversation.
In the intrim,you too can rutus auditorum
Posted by: SicilianEagle at October 15, 2005 07:09 AMEagle,
You started your first post in this thread by calling all the others “tripe”, by claiming that you’ve forgetten more than anyone here will ever know, and then taking it personally when you were responded to in kind. You then went on to demand that I be able to name the five pillars of Islam in order to discuss why the Republican party is in so much trouble.
So I decided to respond in kind again, but this time with a little (subversive) humor. I asked you to identify the difference between black bear shit and grizzly bear shit, which is as relevant to this topic as your inane demand. You failed to realize that scat is a term for animal feces, thus proving that you “don’t know shit” - LITERALLY.
Since you obviously don’t understand when you are being made fun of, I’ll stop doing it.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 15, 2005 11:42 AMElliot Bay
And someone said I had an excess of time on my hands…jeez….
We will continue on another thread….
Elliot Bay
And someone said I had an excess of time on my hands…jeez….
We will continue on another thread….
Thanks, Lawnboy. Eagle is sooooooo easy.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 16, 2005 11:05 AMScicilian Eagle
The right bites back so hard because most of the left are a bunch of sniviling spineless cowards,afraid of their own shadow, Don’t try to make yourself look smart because you have already shown your ignorance. You care nothing about the soldiers just like every other warmongering yellybellied coward who wants someone else to do their dirty work for them. If your such a war backer do as i say go over there and get involved ,that always seems to get you big mouths to change the subject. You showed your true colors w/ your comments about “so what” if troops die, just like any other right winger when your attacked you try to act compassionate, everyone can seeboth your faces, you attack then when your attacked you act like it’s wrong, typical right wing trick. no matter what you say your still a crumb, and stick that latin up your ass here’s some polish for you KISS MY KEESTER YOU DUPA JUDA
JSSavage
I never said “so what” to troops dying.
Re-Read the post.
I said “so what” to mistakes being made after the invasion.
Mistakes WERE made after the invasion and YOU were the one that tacked on American casulaties to it,not me.
Re-read the post.
You twisted my words into Micheal Moore crap.
Every American grieves deply the loss of even one American life.
Your post does seem to be correct,however, when you refer to the left as “sniviling spineless cowards”,although I think that is too harsh a description for the left.
Elliot Bay
I suppose now that the constitution has or shorly will be (according to this morning’s CNN report) been ratified means nothing to you,right?
Iraqi turnout was large….64%… and Sunni participation heavy…
Means nothing,right?
Burt:
Fact,not opinion
Hey eagle
You should go back and read your own post when you say “so what”mistakes were made your trivializing the deaths of americans. you also preach genocide against muslims. I really don’t think your an American, and you still haven’t answered my question about why your not over there trying to help out, your such a man of the world it shouldn’t be hard for you to get over there. why don’t you give us your real name? why don’t you save your anti american rhetoric for your italian citizens, you don’t fool anyone here, your a true nazi, get out of america and let us real americans solve our own problems
I know of no game/event be it checkers, bridge, tennis, or a ball game, whereby the opposition (democrats) do everything they can to help their opponant (republicans).
Cooperating with republicans did not help Clinton, in fact the DLC has lost the last six elections.
When oh when will democrats once again become the party of the people.
Savage
This is the last post I will make to you.
YOU are the one who linked American casualities to my comments,not me.
Nice try.
Plus,I have never said one word about Muslim genocide.Re-read the post.
The rest of your post is infantile.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 17, 2005 04:25 PMHEY EAGLE
KEEP DENYING JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER LYING LIARS ON THE RIGHT. READ YOUR OWN POST. YOU BEEN DRINKING TOO MUCH OF YOUR OWN BATHWATER
