“Almost 60 percent of voters
By on Dec 7th, 2005 at 11:13 am
“Almost 60 percent of voters
say the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Iraq, with 40 percent who say get out immediately, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
We have ceased caring about the nation of Iraq. We need to refocus on our state of affairs.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:25 amThis administration doesn’t listen to the people, they don’t give a sh*t what we want.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:26 amOne alternative path forward:
“What Is to Be Done: A 10-Point Plan for Iraq.”
December 7th, 2005 at 11:28 amAnd the Democrats are afraid that anti-war talk will create a backlash at the polls. Sometimes I think they’re as out of touch with reality as the Bushies.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:30 amexactly #2, why would the president start listening to the public, 60% – just the liberal whackos with a small view…as long as he has his base of 36% that’s all he has needed and all he will listen to
December 7th, 2005 at 11:30 amAs the trolls might say: No wonder we keep defeating the American people at the polls. They’re all defeatists and traitors! :)
December 7th, 2005 at 11:37 amas long as he has his base of 36%. Is that the Powerbase?
December 7th, 2005 at 11:53 am36 % ?????
WAKE UP !!
Sen. Lieberman is wrong.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:01 pm#7 – sarcasm, 60% is a majority and 36% is NOT a power base…i’ll try to be more blatent in the future
December 7th, 2005 at 12:02 pmThis is a bull-shit survey with four out of the five states being blue. Try surveying the rest of the country for a change. Also, its no surprise the public in those states feel this way since most of the MSM is liberally biased and just spewing out the democratic party line. What do you expect? Wait for the day when the Republicans can have the same stranglehold on the media as the dems do today and see what happens. Also, how do you continue to fight the war on terror by surrendering in Iraq? I don’t get it? Our enemy is Al Qaeda. They are fighting us in Iraq. Where would we fight the war if we pulled out? America? Thats right, thats what you’d have if we surrender now. Good luck trying to get people to buy into that strategy.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:06 pmLadies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding,
December 7th, 2005 at 12:07 pmWHITE HOUSE WILL NOT KEEP PROMISES TO IRAQIS: Last month, Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, reported that the “administration promises to use $18 billion Congress allocated to rebuild water, electricity, health and oil networks to prewar levels or better are running into cold reality. ‘We are going to provide something less than that,’ he said.” This position is reflected in last week’s “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” In what the Washington Post called “a striking rollback from an earlier, more optimistic position, the [strategy] says Iraq has the ‘potential’ to become prosperous and self-sustaining — without specifying a time frame.” (This contradicts statements by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz is 2003 that Iraq’s oil revenues “could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. … We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”) These are the harsh facts faced by millions of ordinary Iraqis “who are trying to live a more normal life with the curse of Saddam Hussein taken away, but with a terrible disappointment of the expectations that the removal of Saddam Hussein generated have not been lived up to.”
December 7th, 2005 at 12:08 pmYou just keep telling yourself that.
I tend to believe the people in Madrid, London, Jordan, Egypt, etc. That have been blown up by Al Qaida since we started “fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.”
Also, in case you didn’t notice, Osama bin Laden (you know the guy responsible for 9/11) is in Pakistan, not Iraq. But, that’s just a minor detail.
Also, you might want to take this in:
Washington Post
December 7th, 2005 at 12:13 pmNovember 17,2005
Among Insurgents in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found
freedom is not free,
Please post a link to stories you are sighting. It helps us all to get the full story.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:14 pm36% could be a powerbase if most of the wealth is concentrated there. The wealth in this country has been shifting to a smaller number of people. And Repubs are all about the money.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:18 pmAlso, its no surprise the public in those states feel this way since most of the MSM is liberally biased and just spewing out the democratic party line.
Comment by Liberals Hate America — December 7, 2005 @ 12:06 pm
Confirmation of an Alternate Reality.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:21 pm#15
You don’t mean these people do you:
“This is an impressive crowd – the haves and the have-mores,” quipped the GOP standard-bearer. “Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.”
-George W. Bush
CBS News
December 7th, 2005 at 12:23 pmOctober 20, 2000
Bush And Gore Do New York
#17 GREAT QUOTE…it proves more true day after day
December 7th, 2005 at 12:29 pmSorry Spudge,
December 7th, 2005 at 12:36 pmjavascript:ol(’http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c%3dklLWJcP7H%26amp;b%3d83210′);
http://www.americanprogressaction.org
December 7th, 2005 at 12:37 pmWE NEED TO GET OUT NOW
IN RAMADI, IRAQ:
–Of 1,300 suspected insurgents arrested over the past five months in and around Ramadi, none has been a foreigner. Col John Gronski, senior officer in the town, Anbar’s provincial capital, said that almost all insurgent fighting there was by Iraqis. Foreigners provided only money and logistical support.
–The insurgents have the support of most locals. “They have the ability to move freely around the city,” said Capt Twain Hickman, the commander of India Company of the 3/7 US Marines battalion. “That means they can attack at a time of their choosing.”
–Col Gronski said the local nature of the insurgency meant that even the few civic leaders prepared to work with the Americans view the fighters as legitimate. “They see them as resistance. They don’t view these local guys placing IEDs and firing mortars at us as insurgents.”
Some Iraqis in Ramadi now adhere to Zarqawi’s radical –Islamist philosophy, but for most the insurgency is about removing the occupiers, Col Herbert said.
–”Their family and tribal honour has been impugned if we’re on their ground. They’re almost duty bound to fight.”
http://www.militaryproject.org/article.asp?id=775
December 7th, 2005 at 12:38 pmDon, where did you get that link? does truthout carry it?
December 7th, 2005 at 12:43 pmgood link by the way.
freedom,
I’ve never seen a reference to GI Special at truthout, and I used to blog there until I got into it with Will Pitt, who is another Ryan-type Dem apologist. But that’s another story.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:55 pmGI Special is usually my first visit of the day and I recommend it highly. It’s got great coverage on what’s actually happening in Iraq, unfiltered by the MSM. It’s also a no-holds-barred attack on everyone who supports in any way the mass murder some call a just war. I’ve even gained some disfavor there by saying that we should listen to what Murtha is saying, irrespective of his hawk background. The guy that runs it, Thomas Barton, is a purist when it comes to anti-war philosophy and power to the people.
Bookmark it: http://www.militaryproject.org
Don,
Dem apologist? Are you insane? Oh, wait, aren’t you the LaRouche Communist/anti-globalization troll? Yeah, that’s where I remember you, ff course you are.
I’m completely against the war, and I agree with a pullout. You’re such a freak…
I point people to http://www.optruth.org/ which is run by iraqi vets and other former (and current) soldiers. They’re also anti the war.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:01 pmDon,
All politics must effectively go through 2 active political parties because of the nature of the congressional and election systems in this country. Pick a side, because ‘waffling’ between or outside of both of them creates no power base, and makes you entirely impotent politically.
And I can be pro democrat, anti-dlc and NOT be a ‘dem apologist’ as you so wrongfully accuse. You need to check your attitude with some facts brother!
December 7th, 2005 at 1:04 pmDecember 7, 2005 06:28 AM PST
Washington Post headline:
Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks
From the story:
Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders’ rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year….
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi’s recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.
If these polls truly affected the way America feels, why are Emanuel and Hoyer so concerned?
December 7th, 2005 at 1:19 pmLiberals Hate America,
Post a link.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:27 pmIf these polls truly affected the way America feels, why are Emanuel and Hoyer so concerned?
Comment by Liberals Hate America — December 7, 2005 @ 1:19 pm
Polls don’t affect, they reflect.
As to why they are concerned, maybe you should write and ask them. Perhaps they don’t feel the talk of a “speedy withdrawal” is safe ground yet, who knows.
Fact remains the poll was a result of a national survey, not just in five states as you originally claimed, and 60% favour a withdrawal from Iraq. When and how fast is another story.
The result of this poll is consistent with results from other, previous polls:
Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War
Poll: Fewer than half think U.S. will win in Iraq
December 7th, 2005 at 1:32 pmRyan,
First, I don’t like ‘freak,’ but I DID like ‘witless fool.’ Don’t I have any say in what you call me?
I understand, you’re a pragmatist. Unfortunately, there is little difference between the two ’sides.’ In the last election Kerry and Bush agreed on: Iraq war, Patriot Act, corporate welfare, health care, drug war, trade, education, Palestine, and Kerry didn’t hardly mention the environment or global warming. So there aren’t really any sides, there are just two parties vying for power and patronage — a charade. We all have to make our individual choices. Do we A.swear allegiance to one of these ’sides,’ defending our choice with blind loyalty, and hold our noses and vote? Or do we B. take stands on principles? You choose A., I choose B.
Specifically, you accept everything Bill Clinton ever did unquestioningly. And when anyone (like me=’witless fool’) points out that Clinton initiated aggression against Serbia and Iraq (with a big loss of life post Persian Gulf War) then you get freaked out and start calling them schoolyard names.
It’s really a shame, because except for your blind spot on Dems you have a pretty good grasp of facts, and your intentions I think are correct.
So — if ‘Dem apologist’ rankles, how would you describe yourself? Loyal Democrat? And what is a Democrat? Is it flip-flop Kerry? suck-up-to-Bush Lieberman? Biden? Reid? expand-the-army Rodham Clinton? The centrist aggressor Bill Clinton? Flip-flop Dean? Pelosi? Who’s YOUR Democrat? And what do you overlook about him/her?
December 7th, 2005 at 1:34 pmDon,
Not true. Clinton’s welfare reform was a horrific idea. He produced a strong enough economy to mitigate much of its shortcomings, but your ‘attack’ on me is just as consistently irrational as that of the reichwingers.
And I agree that Kerry was a relatively weak candidate from a progressive side, and he was definitely not my first choice. But compared to Bush which many historians are already saying is going to be recorded as the worst president in history – there is no comparison. It’s all ‘relative’, and that’s what you seem completely ‘blind’ to. You talk about ‘blind spots’, but you and the rest of the LaRouche and Green crowd are truly blind to how much of a difference there still is in the two parties. Wake up, because your blind attack on democrats is entirely too limbaugh and hateful for my tastes. Stop being a sympathy troll.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:39 pmDon I would be interested in knowing who you think most reflects your political philosophy.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:41 pmI prefer Pelosi, Obama and Edwards. Not only do they care, but they actually propose ideas and legislation that is important for america.
Since you prefer to ‘attack’ everyone, who do you want elected, Nader? Please… Get over yourself.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:42 pmDon is a LaRouche/Green anti-globalist. I can already tell by his meaningless and thoughtless attack strategy.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:43 pmDon,
Try a democrat that is a coward. They are no longer the party of FDR or Kennedy who stood up to the world when they needed to. This defeatist policy is consuming the party led by Dean. Mark my word, it will lead to more seats lost in the house and senate. The party cannot commit itself totally to supporting the war or against it because they are unsure of the outcome. What they want is to have it both ways, when we succeed in Iraq, they want some of the credit. If we fail, which we won’t, they want to be able to tell us, I told you so. So in the end, the best way to describe a democrat (except for Lieberman) is a coward.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:45 pm#34
Funny, have you joined the military in the past 5 minutes that we don’t know about?
December 7th, 2005 at 1:48 pmHas anyone noticed that the poll also questioned who one would vote for in a McCain vs. Hillary? This is way early, but if the country is so dissatisfied with the Repubs, why is McCain still the hypothetical winner?
To be fair the poll also revealed that the pollees wish Congress to be Democratically controlled after the next elections (although a large percentage (17%) is undecided).
I have an honest question for those that would intelligently answer … why do minorities almost universally support the democrats. I know that this is partially a policy issue … but there should be a more even split even then. Policy issues don’t effect a popultation equally. The republicans have the most powerful African-American (man and woman) in US history (not to mention the most powerful african american judge and first female supreme court justice) and the most powerful Hispanic in US history … obviously this isn’t the only factor that earns votes, but it’s telling. As far as I remember, for all of Clinton’s being the “first black president” I can’t think of one major appointee that was black.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:00 pmRyan
Pelosi’s got too many skeletons … I’d even have to take a long hard look at Jon Edwards (depending on the opponent). That should be telling enough for you … he’s your best bet in my opinion. Hillary is way too polarizing.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:02 pm#36
Because the average minority cannot realate to rich powerful people. When they look around their neighborhoods, they don’t see rich powerful republican minoritites doing anything to help their communities.
Remember, it is the democrats who want social programs and republicans that want to get rid of them. It is why republicans say that democrats are communists.
So, if somebody is cutting social progrmas for the poor, it doesn’t matter what color their skin is.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:05 pmIts not so much as Why we went to War, Its HOW we went to WAR!
December 7th, 2005 at 2:07 pmI Know WHY We went to WAR. 911.
How we went was illogical.
Soldiers of Fortune If had been given the Chance. Could Have Gotten OBL Alive and Had him in America before the end of Sept 2001
Because the average minority cannot realate to rich powerful people. When they look around their neighborhoods, they don’t see rich powerful republican minoritites doing anything to help their communities.
So, if somebody is cutting social progrmas for the poor, it doesn’t matter what color their skin is.
Are you saying that the majority of minorities are poor? I know proportionally this may be true (ie. a larger percent to the whole as compared to whites), but this doesn’t completely explain the “one-sidedness”. It was like 90/10 last election … in addition, until the most recent proposed cuts, social program spending (especially education) is larger under Bush than Clinton (he’s never vetoed a spending bill). Also, it was Clinton that actually reduced welfare benefits … and hugely (Ryan’s already pointed this out).
December 7th, 2005 at 2:24 pmAre you saying that the majority of minorities are poor? I know proportionally this may be true (ie. a larger percent to the whole as compared to whites), but this doesn’t completely explain the “one-sidedness”.
Comment by Giacomo (aka GeoMetro & Jocko-Homo & Jerkamo) — December 7, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
Minority households earn less, have less education, are more likely to be unemployed than their White counterparts.
Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States
It is true that the Clinton administration reduced welfare benefits. However, Democrats have for years now spent more money on domestic & social programmes than Republicans, who tend to favour defence projects.
I am generalising, obviously -but that’s what sticks in people’s minds. Also Clinton cut down welfare, but the idea was to get people off the welfare lists into a payroll. Most people want to have a job and work for their money.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:44 pmBen,
The person who most reflects my political philosophy is Ralph Nader.
Ryan,
Nope, don’t like anti-globalist either, I do believe the world is round.
On Democrats,
As others have pointed out, they’re getting a free ride now because the two parties have essentially made it impossible for third parties to vie for any power in this country. The Dems in particular have blocked and challenged any progressives, so to force us to ‘don’t waste our vote’ ha ha and vote for them.
On Kerry,
He would have enlarged the Iraq war, not ended it.
On Obama,
He said: “From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.” -[-Bush isn't bad, just sloppy.]
On Kucinich, on why he didn’t vote to get out of Iraq:
“I have spent three years making the case against the war in Iraq, trying to convince Congress to avoid war, working with other members in leading nation-wide opposition to the war, developing an exit strategy once we got in, working with colleagues on both side of the aisle on plans to withdraw from Iraq and bring our troops home.
“I will vote against this resolution because it is a fraud. What more does anyone need to know, but that the sponsor himself has called for the defeat of his own proposition? [= I will vote against it because the Repubs are voting against it.]If his real intention were to bring our troops home right now, why would he vote against his own resolution? Wake up America.
“The American people are fed up with politicians who say one thing and do another.”
Kucinich, like every other Dem but Murtha right now, is a fraud. Where is William Fulbright? Bobby Kennedy? Until Murtha, the only noteworthy voices against the war were Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, both Repubs, for heavens sakes.
DK’s words bear repeating: “Wake up America. The American people are fed up with politicians who say one thing and do another.” Yes, we have taxation without representation, and to sit idly by and let our Dem ‘representatives’ get away with fence-straddling is not an option for me. As Cindy said: “Why are they still on the fence?”
December 7th, 2005 at 2:53 pm“The Dems in particular have blocked and challenged any progressives, so to force us to ‘don’t waste our vote’ ha ha and vote for them.” Don
Oh please, what republican ‘charity’ funds your crappola nonsense. Democrats do NOT block progressives, republicans do. Democrats have many progressives, but clearly not enough. You don’t believe Pelosi is a progressive?
December 7th, 2005 at 3:16 pm“Also, it was Clinton that actually reduced welfare benefits … and hugely (Ryan’s already pointed this out).
Comment by Giacomo” GeoMetro
Another ‘half truth’, that GeoMetro is so famous for. I hold Clinton responsible for signing these ‘cuts’, but it was the republican majority in congress that pushed them through as part of a larger budget overhaul. Republicans are at fault as usual, but Clinton is most certainly possibly responsible.
And as for the ’spending’ on Bush, that’s only because so many americans are now unemployeed (counted by many non-thinking repukes as ‘entitlements’) or poor. The spending per capita has not increased to keep pace with the increases in living expenses however, making people more poor yet again under the republicans.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:19 pm“On Kerry,
He would have enlarged the Iraq war, not ended it.” Don
Actually that’s true, but there are two strategies that would have (I think the time has passed for this now) worked. One is to enlarge the occupation sufficiently to suppress disent and give the country enough time to settle and rebuild. This does work as has been shown in kosovo. The other option is to withdraw and allow the factions to beat each other up long enough to be willing to make peace or partition themselves (this is what the soviets allowed to happen with yugoslavia).
I’m afraid we may be at the point where the second option is about all we’re left with. The US and the world seems unwilling to commit the sufficient peacekeeper force levels necessary to occupy a country the size of Iraq, so our presence there is nothing more than disruptive. It is not helpful.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:22 pmDon,
Your responses are ‘naive’, the world is more complicated than you care to recognize.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:23 pmBut, Gregor, given the stats only 24% of african americans and 22% of Hispanics can be characterized as poor. Then the disparity should be 60/40 but certainly not 90/10 … does this also mean that as more minorities get wealthy that the democrats will lose votes?
I agree with you that the Democrats support social programs more strongly than Republicans, but they don’t seem to support individual minorities as strongly (the aforementioned appointees and cabinent members bear this out, I think).
December 7th, 2005 at 3:24 pmAnother ‘half truth’, that GeoMetro is so famous for. I hold Clinton responsible for signing these ‘cuts’, but it was the republican majority in congress that pushed them through as part of a larger budget overhaul. Republicans are at fault as usual, but Clinton is most certainly possibly responsible.
So Bush is always responsible for everything that can go wrong, but Clinton gets a pass when he freely advocates a conservative measure (and one that you strongly disagree with) … cognitive dissonance, anyone (I know you love that term).
December 7th, 2005 at 3:27 pmJust say Clinton was wrong (in your opinion) and leave the Republican part out … otherwise it sounds like an excuse.
“he’s wrong … but look at all these guys … they’re wrongerer”
December 7th, 2005 at 3:29 pmI don’t agree with an immediate pull-out. However we should pull back into the Kurdish areas and work out of there.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:37 pm(…)does this also mean that as more minorities get wealthy that the democrats will lose votes?
Comment by Giacomo — December 7, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
I don’t know -maybe, maybe not. Given the fact that Bush popularity hovers around 2% in the African-American community, I would think not.
Bush popularity keeps dropping
I agree with you that the Democrats support social programs more strongly than Republicans, but they don’t seem to support individual minorities as strongly
I am not sure what this means. If you are talking about the minority appointees and other administration members, Spudge already said something that rings true to me: “Because the average minority cannot realate to rich powerful people. When they look around their neighborhoods, they don’t see rich powerful republican minoritites doing anything to help their communities”
December 7th, 2005 at 3:40 pmGeoMetro,
Who said he got a pass other you and your delusional whackorama. Clinton went along with a bad republican plan, and he was wrong for doing this. But it doesn’t change the fact that it was a REPUBLICAN PLAN and a REPUBLICAN EFFORT that drove the policy. In the end he’s responsible for his signature, but the republicans are responsible for the bad idea, and political capital that it took to pass it.
You’re such an apologist for bad republican ideas…
December 7th, 2005 at 4:25 pm““he’s wrong … but look at all these guys … they’re wrongerer— GeoMetro
Is that how your brain works?
So you believe that a nazi field soldier is equally as wrong as Hitler was? That there’s no degrees of culpability?
That would explain your obvious schizophrenia.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:26 pm#17, Spudgeboy, You have quite a file of goodies at your disposal. That quote from GW shows just how ignorant he is and the contempt he has for most of us.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:28 pm#47
“does this also mean that as more minorities get wealthy that the democrats will lose votes?”
Yes, because by and large most people don’t care about other people and switch to republican as soon as they get wealth. Why, because the republicans are all about tax cuts for the rich.
But, that doesn’t go for just minorities. That goes for any color.
People are for the most part sell-outs.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:05 pm#54
Marie,
I just love this stuff. I mean I hate the policies of Bush, but I love making him look as stupid as he is.
There is a wealth of stupidity that Bush has given to us. I am so happy that Think Progress has given me the ability to post pictures now. Some of the funniest stuff has to be seen.
Like Bush crashing an “uncrashable” Segway:
December 7th, 2005 at 6:09 pmHere’s another good one:
December 7th, 2005 at 6:11 pmGeoMetro,
Wealth doesn’t assure republican votes, only greed does that. I’m an example of someone from a well of family, and who’s personally very well off, and frankly I think republicans are homorously, selfish, lazy and retarded.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:47 pmRyan said: “Actually that’s true [Kerry would enlarge the war], but there are two strategies that would have (I think the time has passed for this now) worked. One is to enlarge the occupation sufficiently to suppress disent . . . The other option is to withdraw and allow the factions to beat each other up . . .”
What you have to understand is that it is our occupation which is the ‘catalyst for resistance,’ as Murtha has said. So, more occupation, more resistance. You don’t suppress dissent, you cause it. That’s because our troops have been consistently raiding houses and businesses, often at night, harassing the occupants, destroying personal property, stealing, injuring, grabbing young men and throwing them in prison, torturing them, and on and on, as well as people detained, searched, harassed and sometimes shot at checkpoints. This doesn’t even consider the armed assaults against neighborhoods, as Fallujah, with 500 pound bombs and other nasty stuff. In other words, the occupation is aggression against the Iraqi people, and being a proud people, with strong clan loyalties, they react against aggression the same way you or I would, with counter-aggression. So Kerry would have made things worse.
A rapid withdrawal is the only way to stop this fiasco. The Shiites and Sunnis have gotten along before. There was widespread mixture of the two in neighborhoods, schools, and even within families. I suspect a lot of the inter-clan conflict we’re seeing now is a result of CIA and British Secret Service (remember two of them were captured in Basra) stirring things up by shooting and bombing. I mean, ask yourself, who benefits from this ‘civil war’ threat? The Chimp does, because now he has a new reason (the other 46 didn’t fly) to stay in Iraq, prolong the war, and continue the occupation. You don’t think the CIA would stoop to killing people? Ha. The other problem is a lack of a effort on the diplomatic front to solve the political problems of the Sunnis and protect their interests. Again, the administration never wants to see this thing end. But, bottom line, I don’t think we should get all teary-eyed about an Iraqi civil war. It’s their country, just as ours was back in 1861. We dealt with our internal problems without Iraqis over here to ‘help’ us.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:56 pmRyan said: “Democrats do NOT block progressives, republicans do.”
Kerry and crew challenged Ralph Nader’s right to be on the ballot in every state in 2004, causing large legal expenses just to defend a right to be on the ballot. The repubs had no reason to keep Nader off the ballot, obviously.
The problems for third party candidates in this country has permeated down into state election laws, where elections are controlled, so that minor problems with petitions (wrong color paper,etc) can keep progressives and others off ballots.
The whole thing is orchestrated by the same folks that bring us the ‘presidential debates’ (Ha) among, usually, just the Dem and Repub, no others need apply, thank you. So no real issues ever surface in presidential campaigns, usually it’s just charges and counter-charges. The whole system is oreiented toward keeping us moving toward totally corporate-controlled governments at every level, federal and state.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:23 pmRepublicans funded Nader, those challenges were proper in light of the events. Third parties are generally used to ‘disrupt’ a main party, and that’s why they don’t work.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:40 pmDon,
All you’ve done is shown the importance of campaign finance reform, and I agree with it.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:41 pmRyan,
Third parties don’t work for the reasons I stated. The system is stacked against them. Read Nader’s ‘Crashing the Party.’
Some of us have beliefs that are NOT subscribed to by the two parties allowed by our system. Since the two parties agree on almost everything, that’s not so hard to understand, is it? I’m anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-No Child etc, anti-corporate welfare, pro-environment and pro-social compact that protects the most vulnerable of our people. So, not being brainwashed that I have to be a member of some group, one that does not reflect my beliefs, I make an individual choice to support some and attack others.
Absent campaign finance reform, I mean, good luck, but money is the lifeblood for these people, I will take my views to the idea marketplace and defend them against people like you who bow and scrape to the party gods. I’m from New Hampshire: Live free or die.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:59 pmHere’s an even more important poll:
If Iraq is a democracy, then who represents the 82% of the population that is “strongly opposed” to us being there?
December 7th, 2005 at 10:26 pmWhy don’t we just send the other 40 percent over there that don’t think we should bring the troops home.
Then we could bring the troops home in time for Christmas.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:26 pmfree ring tones
free ring tones
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:52 pm