70 percent.
By on Jan 11th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
70 percent.
Number of Americans who oppose sending more troops to Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. “Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move.”
UPDATE: An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after Bush’s speech last night finds that just 36 percent of the American public supports his plan to send more troops to Iraq. Barely three in 10 accept Bush’s claim that a “troop increase now will end the war more quickly.”
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
Reality has a way of catching up to people…..pretty soon it’s all going to catch up to ol’Dubbie, too.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pmAnd these numbers never seem to change. As long as the 30percenter hard-core base is in place, it can mess up elections. The 50 percent of the eligible voters who do not vote, are allowing this very small group to influence the majority of the population. Sad.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pmThe problem of course is that nobody really knows what ‘victory’ means. It seems to mean American control of an acquiescent Iraqi, puppet government – in which case – it probably won’t succeed.
Its virtually impossible to come up with a successful strategy when the goals are not clearly articulated and agreed upon. Sharing a strategy is not the same as sharing the actual vision or goal. It is this ’secrecy’ which prevents external support, which is so self-evidently lacking.
Still they can always keep bombing and pretending they are trying to achieve a goal, can’t they. Better than admitting it was always about oil Gov’.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pmMore and more people are admitting that they were misled and voted for a very dangerous psycopath. Impeachment can’t be too far off.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pmGeorge Bush has been accused by the Arab world of seeing the problems in the middle-east through rose-tinted synagoggles.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pmToo little, too late.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pmremember, this administration doesn’t care about polls …
January 11th, 2007 at 1:46 pmWOW ! 70%? That’s all? Damn. Let me know when it is a SIGNIFICANT percentage. /sarcasm>
January 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pmConservatives do not believe the people know what’s best for them. This goes all the way back to Edmund Burke. Furthermore, true libertarians, the kind you find hanging out at the Ayn Rand Institute, don’t even believe democracy is a good form of government. Keep this in mind when trying to fathom why Bush and his people seem to have no regard for the majority opinion.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pmAnd so? The troops are being sent as we write, and the full escalation will go on no matter what. Remember that IDIOT SON said a while back that he will move forward with HIS plans even if only his wife and his dog support them.
Face, it…. this is a prelude to a wider war. The plan itself is simply the next phase in the PNAC plans that set the Afghanistan and Iraq wars into motion.
MUST READ; Why Did Bush Give Kristol’s Speech? PNAC is Alive and Well and They’re Taking Us to Iran and Syria!
CLICK HERE
January 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pmNo matter…. Barney and Laura approve.
And so do the PNAC thugs who brought us Afghanistan and Iraq.
MUST READ:
CLICK HERE
January 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pmI find it very interesting that the raid of the Iran consulate is only making headlines in foreign news sources.
Why on earth could that be??
January 11th, 2007 at 2:04 pmCan anybody say “Ratchet up the violence and try to start WWIII?â€
I know I can[...]
Oh, Shit!
January 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pmLet me know when it is a SIGNIFICANT percentage. /sarcasm>
Comment by robert — January 11, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
I know you are being sarcastic, but I does seem to me the percentage should be a little higher. What are the other 30% thinking? That is an awful lot of people.
Poll after poll, it’s the same thing: There is always a 30-odd percent of the American electorate who seem to be behind Pres Bush no matter what, and will believe whatever he says. It is actually a bit disheartening.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pmMy guess is that the only two people that Bush is really listening to are Cheney and Rove.
Cheney has the PNAC agenda and absolutely nothing would make him think that it wasn’t worth the cost. He will go all the way to the very end, full-scale global war if it comes to that, regardless of the cost in lives or the condition that our country is left in. He just doesn’t care and he’ll always blame the tragic results on someone else.
Rove is in charge of Bush’s legacy and he’s determined to block any attempts to allow Bush’s war to be declared a failure while Bush is still in office. In fact, he’s in charge of making sure that any attempts to change Bush’s mind about anything are thwarted. He wants the emperor’s reign to end on the emperor’s terms.
None of the three seem to learn anything from defeat.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:11 pm#14. Thats because foreign news outlets are interesting in telling their readers and viewers about world events, unlike American news outlets who are only interested in ratings. Didn’t you see this morning that Justin Timberlake broke up with Cameron Diaz because he “loved” someone else? It was in at least 3 American “news” sources I checked this morning.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:13 pmReg,
Very timely they go after computers and files of Iranian officials. More troops on the way, another naval fleet on the way, a Naval Admiral in charge of the troops in the area, Negroponte moves to the State Dept., etc. If Iran flinches expect another “front on the Global War on Terror” to open up.
Liz,
January 11th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThey have it at CNN but the article is toned for excuses.
#18 So most the country is against the escalation. Is the Dem controlled congress? I guess we will wait and see as to if they block the money for this war or if infact they are for the war.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:19 pmYou know who they (the 30%ers) are…
…they’re your family members…
…your co-workers, friends, and acquaintences…
…they’re the ones who tell the racist jokes when no one else is around…
…the ones you tolerate…
…shun them into reality…
January 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pmIt is not good government for the president to deploy troops first and then dare Congress to cut off funding for them.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pmRoger_Rhetoric sez:
I’m getting pretty sick of you bandying around this false choice, Roger.
What do you think would happen if the Dems cut off every single penny for this war? Do you think Bush would admit defeat, and issue orders to recall the troops before the lack of funds impacted the war effort? Or do you think he would just keep them there, letting them starve and run out of ammunition, while all the while cursing the Dems for ‘not supporting our troops’?
(Hint: if you think the former, you obviously haven’t been paying attention.)
Bush has already shown he has absolutely no regard for human life other than his own. He will leverage this situation for all it is worth, with our men and women in uniform, as usual, paying the price for his hubris.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pm#24 In the next spending bill, if the Dems vote yes to any Iraq money they are truly supporting the Iraq war. What is bigger support then funding it afterall? They simply need to vote NO to any Iraq war money coming up. This bleeds the war dry and ends it sooner then later. Why you on this site argue this with me is odd. I would think you are the people demanding your leaders vote no to War money, but now your all supporting them to vote yes. Is this simply a political power grab? Does neither side truly care about american lives? Anyone can talk a big game, but when you turn around and vote yes over and over for the Iraq war, it gets old to say your against it on TV.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pmHere’s an interesting thought: we know that Bush is doing this stuff to try to punt the war so his successor can lose it…and to save Bush’s legacy.
However, his legacy-saving move is NOT helping him; more people are liking him less. His formula of looking tough and presidential by getting more blood on his hands is failing, as it should…
January 11th, 2007 at 2:42 pmAn 18 to 24 year old young republican supporter of the war wonders what he can do to help: “Hmmmmmm. What can we war supporters do…. I know. Write an essay on why a troop surge is a great idea!”
January 11th, 2007 at 2:47 pmwell then i guess it’s good public opinion doesn’t dictact national policy.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:56 pmAll of the right wings trolls, between the age of 18 to 42 need to be drafted to fight their holy war.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
then perhaps all the democrats who supported the war in afghanistan need to be drafted to fight that war.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pmI’m one of the 30% who support the war. I agree that there are many, many concerns about the conduct of the war to date and the chances for a successful outcome. Is anyone here willing to address the ramifications for the Iraqis (and for us) if/or when we withdraw the troops. (i.e., everything will be okay, or it’s the Iraqis problem, or once we leave there will be no sectarian violence, or other). I am not trying to be insidiary, I am curious to see what people think will happen if we can withdraw the troops from Iraq. It could be the best thing we could do (I’m not convinced), but what do you think will happen if we could get the troops home?
January 11th, 2007 at 3:09 pmThe polls are totally irrelevant. Bush doesn’t care what anyone thinks, god told him to get it on. How can a 70% poll, or a 90% poll or a 100% poll stand up next to a direct order from the CEO in the sky?
Bush is afraid that he will run out of time, two years is not long to kickstart Armageddon. This is not about Iraq, it’s about his Crusade.
Let’s stop playing his game, unless he is stopped, unless we take the power away from him, his demented mind will drag us into a wider war.
Impeach, coup, mutiny, whatever it takes.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:09 pmRoger_Rhetoric, go back and actually read my previous post. Your post shows quite clearly that you have not.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:14 pm#31 paul
Is anyone here willing to address the ramifications for the Iraqis (and for us) if/or when we withdraw the troops. (i.e., everything will be okay, or it’s the Iraqis problem, or once we leave there will be no sectarian violence, or other). I am not trying to be insidiary, I am curious to see what people think will happen if we can withdraw the troops from Iraq. It could be the best thing we could do (I’m not convinced), but what do you think will happen if we could get the troops home?
That discussion should be going on between the White House, the House, and the Senate. It’s never happened, though. Bush has insisted on keeping all of the decision-making process to himself. He doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. He may pretend to care, for PR purposes, but he doesn’t. I’d be more than happy to offer my opinions on it, but I’d like to see all of the people who represent us along with all of the people who really know the issues to work this thing out together. It won’t happen while Bush is in office, though. No matter how wrong he is, he wants to be the emperor and he wants to force his ideas on everyone else.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:19 pm…uh…
January 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pmnot sure if it’s been mentioned yet… but did dubya say that our troops will be under the command of an iraqi officer? …working out of the local police stations (that are routinely blown up)??? (via randi)
…eh?…
chimpeach. I respect what you have to say. I will concede that the President has done a terrible job in communicating the need for this war to the American people and a terrible job of maintaining buy in from the opposition party. But as I concede that, it still leaves us with the question, what would happen in Iraq and the middle east if we pull the troops out. I understand that you want the best minds input, however I sincerely regard yours as one of the best minds. (Besides, the fact that government isn’t debating some serious issues, doesn’t seem to prevent those debates here.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:32 pmIs anyone here willing to address the ramifications for the Iraqis (and for us) if/or when we withdraw the troops. (i.e., everything will be okay, or it’s the Iraqis problem, or once we leave there will be no sectarian violence, or other).
Comment by paul #31
paul,
WHEN we leave…
…the Sunnis and Shi’ia will settle old scores until:
a) the Sunnis are all absorbed (as refugees) by their rich neighbors like the Saudis and/or Jordanians…
b) they get tired of killing each other and broker a peace instigated by their neighbors (and fellow Muslims and Persians) etc…
c) they are divided into three distinct autonomous regions run by (Turkey in the north- Kurds), Saudi Arabia (in the central Sunni region) and Iran (the rest of Iraq with shi’ia populations…
Iran WILL become a regional superpower (with help from Russia, China and their (Iranian) oil…
The United States (under world pressure) will push Israel to settle the Palestinian question once and for all…
…the Democrats will restore America’s manufacturing base by punishing the traitor global corporatists who offshore tax money and outsource American jobs…
…TRAITORS like Bushiva, L’il Dick, and all of their corporate lackeys and criminal co-conspirators will be brought to justice. Their fortunes confiscated and their freedom forfeit…
…unions will become IMPORTANT again, when future global trade deals that America engages in require wage and benefit packages, along with unionization efforts for foreign workers (to bring their pay, benefits and standard of living up to OURS!) be instituted…
…that’s if the world survives these next two years under the DESPERATE criminal Bushite junta…
January 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pmbig papa. Thanks for a reasonable response. If you believe Iran will become a regional superpower, do you think that is something to be concerned about? Also, do you believe that it is unavoidable?
January 11th, 2007 at 3:47 pmbig papa. I don’t know if you saw it, or what you make of it, but in Barrack Obama’s response to the President’s speech last night on CNN, he stated that he believed the President believed that what he was proposing was in the best interest of the country (although Obama disagreed). Obama did not accuse Bush of criminal intent in his pursuit of the war. When you characterize the President as a criminal, is it that you disagree with his decisions, or do you really believe he is guilty of criminal action.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#43 So your not concerned about Iran gaining power even though they are an enemy of the USA? Seems like that would not be in our best interest. Especially for the fact that we need there Oil. Letting them get stronger now makes it harder to get there Oil later.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:01 pmI have concerns on the response to Bush’s speech last night.
All of the heat is focused on the troop increase number, 21,500, while the true story lies elsewhere.
Even with the increase in troops their number will still be below where it was a year ago. Did that stop the killing? Of course not.
More likely, these troops are there for support of moves against Iran and Syria in the next months. Deception is a tactic of war for as long as wars have been fought. And that deception in suckering the Iraq war critics into focusing on the wrong elements of the speech.
Let’s focus more closely on what Bush said in relation to Syria and especially Iran. We did today attack an Iranian facility in the Kurdish area of Iraq and take computers and other documentation. Most people would consider this an act of war. Is Bush trying to sucker Iran into a hot war?
January 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pmSpudge Boy, are you also agreeing that the focus on the “troop surge” aspect is misguided and the we should be more concerned with what was both said and not said concerning Syria and especially Iran?
January 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pm“So What”!!! “I have 36% of the idiot behind me and that’s all i need”
January 11th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThud.
That is the sound of Bush’s job approval numbers.
Below is from Rasmussen’s daily tracking of Bush’s job approval.
Bush Job Approval
Dec 2005 – Current
Approve Disapprove
Jan 11 39 58
Jan 10 44 54
Jan 9 42 55
Jan 8 40 57
Jan 7 40 57
Jan 6 42 55
Jan 5 45 54
While it has been swinging rather wildly for a day-to-day poll it dropped off the cliff between Jan 10 and 11.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:15 pmPaul, even if Obama thought Bush was a criminal, it’s not as if he could say that. There are rules of decorum in the Senate that go back 200 years. Once in a while, some a-hole breaks the rules of decorum. Cheney telling a Senator to “go f*ck himself” would be an example of that. But, you should know that books have been written outlining numerous examples of lawless behavior by this administration. Some constitutional scholars are calling this one the most lawless administration in history. Way back in 2004, John Dean wrote a book called “Worse Than Watergate,” in which he made the case for about four impeachable offenses, and that was years ago. Since then, they threatened to fire their own OMB accountant if he told Congress the true cost of a bill, issued hundreds of “signing statements” negating the point of legislation, illegally funded a shooting war with “emergency funds,” broke the 14th Amendment by telling people that Treasury Bills were “useless pieces of paper,” illegally opened Americans’ mail, illegally listened in on Americans’ phone conversations, trashed a CIA intelligence asset for political purposes, lied to congress about the prosecution of the war, lied to congress about intentions regarding the war, illegally plotted to attack Iran and Syria…. look, man, I can’t go on. The list is just too large.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pmWhen you characterize the President as a criminal, is it that you disagree with his decisions, or do you really believe he is guilty of criminal action.
Comment by paul #41
paul,
I sincerely believe that George W. Bush had EVERY intention of making his political “cajones” off being known as the “conqueror of Iraq/the greater Middle East”…
…he had a hard on for Saddam (in particular) bec:
1) his father had tried (but failed) to engineer Saddam’s demise, and Saddam had (allegedly) tried to “have (his) dad killed”…
…Bush saw Saddam as an opportunity to earn his father’s “approval”/ finally get one up on the old man after having failed at so many other ventures over the years…
2) the American oil and gas industry gods would smile upon him for “securing” the the world’s second largest oil reserves for their unfettered plunder…
3) He could garner the admiration and undying gratitude of the American electorate for the Repulsivescum Party. Effectively demolishing the electorate’s displeasure w/the Repulsivescum “House Managers” AND the endearing persona and worldwide favorable opinion (in spite of the impeachment) of the Clinton admin…
4) Dick Cheney’s hard work privatizing parts of support services for the military presented a FANTASTIC opportunity to make some money for (Cheney)/ the firm on whose behalf Cheney had pushed for privatization in the first place….(Cheney IS this country’s ABRAMHOFF PROTOTYPE)…
5) big time corporate sponsors (especially those in the military industrial complex), Bushiva’s dad’s Carlyle Group, and Bush’s political benefactors could ALL get payback…
9/11 gave Bushiva and L’il Dick all the cover they needed…
This is of course an “over simplification” of what is undoubtedly a much more convoluted reality…
…but it is nonetheless, my humble opinion…
Hundreds of thousands have died (and more will die especially if Iran is attacked to cover their tracks)…
… over a trillion dollars will have been wasted, and so much good will that its impact is incalculable (what might have been if Gore had taken his rightful position?)…
Yes paul, Bushiva, L’il Dick and EVERYONE who engineered this war are CRIMINALS!
January 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pmOne more point paul…
Why shouldn’t Ahmadinejad and the Iranians seek to produce nuclear weapons (and there is NO proof that their program is nothing more than peaceful at this point)…
…with Bushiva having spent the last six years threatening them?
…can you imagine OUR (the US’) reaction if say Chinese President Hu Jintao or Russian Premier Putin had been levelling such rhetoric at us?
…al Crackkkers in this country are nothing but HYPOCRITES, racists, and high priests of hegemony and manifest destiny…
…but the people of the developing world have studied well al Crackkker’s HISTORY of aggression, imperialism, and colonialism- and they are simply NOT going to take it anymore…
January 11th, 2007 at 7:01 pmI’m squarely with the big papa on this one. There are numerous reasons to conclude that Bush took office intending to look for a reason to attack Iraq and show up his father. On a policy level, the PNAC document proves that most of the members of his administration wanted to attack Iraq as early as 1996. If they intended on doing it and looked for ways to get it done, that’s about as CRIMINAL as an administration can get…. and absolutely impeachable.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:04 pmGRAMMAR ALERT:
(and there is NO proof that their program is ANYTHING but….)
January 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pmbig papa and Bluedog49. I can’t really communicate it effectively but what I see in both of your arguments is elements of truth (ie. Bush 41’s unfinished job and the attempt on his life, the domestic spying program, the importance of oil, etc – all issues) but I see the arguments taken to an unrealistic extreme. We can disagree on the significance of any individual charge. But, what I would submit, is that if any one of these charges were criminal, the press (regardless of how friendly to the current admin you believe they are) would do whatever it would take to break a story like that. It would make Woodward green with envy. I could be wrong – (if you succeed in impeachment, I’m sure I could change my mind). For now, I believe it more plausible that many (or most) are so dissatisfied with the decisions of the current administration, they begin to believe that poor decisions can be considered criminal acts.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:43 pmPaul, what makes you think the press wants to report anything bad about Bush? They’ve already overlooked things which would have merited major league “gate” attention in the 90’s. I’ll give you one example of something I don’t even think is very important: Secret Service and FBI records showed that a male whore using an assumed name visited the whitehouse a number of times at night when no press gaggle was scheduled and there was no record of him checking out. Now, consider what would have happened if this was the Clinton whitehouse. There’s sex, whitehouse visits, strange relationships… all the things which created big headlines during Clinton — why no press reaction?
January 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pmPaul, the press went nuts over Whitewater, which was a failed 20-year old land deal in which the Clintons lost $250,000. Long after the Resolution Trust Corporation decided in 1994 that the Clintons had done nothing wrong, the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media was pressing the idea that they had done something wrong.
In the early 90’s, Bush sat on a corporate board. The corporation’s lawyers told the board not to sell any of their shares because stock prices were going to drop and it would be construed as insider trading. Bush sold anyway, enjoyed a huge profit, the majority of stockholders were screwed. Bush’s father picked a family lawyer to be the guy to look into this for the SEC and he decided not to persue an investigation. The media were not interested.
I could go on and on with examples of this, but the bottom line is that the mainstream media isn’t what you think it is.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:03 pmBluedog49. I enjoy your posts and most of the time you are very reasonable. Come on. If anyone could break the story of a male whore in the White House, they would do it. It would make Clinton’s misstep look like jay walking. Please convince me of one good reason why if the press thought a male prostitute was being used in the White House, somebody wouldn’t jump on it? I will listen to you.
P.S. It reminds me of the conspiracy theorists that claim that the Clinton’s had Vince Foster killed. If it was plausible, the media would have broke it.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:59 pmhttp://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/news/companies/stemcells/index.htm
January 11th, 2007 at 9:12 pmdisregard #60. wrong post. Sorry.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pmpaul #59
paul,
…you’re either very sheltered or are “acting” naiive…
…the mainstream media’s ownership are Bushiva and L’il Dick’s constituency…
…THEY are responsible for Bushiva’s ascension and orbit…
…THEY REALLY DO control the horizontal…and vertical of everything you see as long as you’re watching ONLY THEM…
…THEY create reality…
…Jack Kenndy was one of the biggest whoremongers who did his dirt in the White (man’s) House…
…the American people NEVER heard a peep until years after his death…
…just recently the Carlyle Group was rumored to be in the works to be bought out for $150 billion by some obscure investment group…
…news about this mega-deal was quickly hushed…
…much like Bushiva’s desertion from the U.S. military during his presidential campaign bid…
…the mainstream media (owned by a few elitists) control “THE MESSAGE”…
…that’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact!
…grow up paul…
…or stop “acting”…
———————————————————————————————–
Off topic but REALLY important. Anderson Cooper had a great report about a Senate bill to stop the payment of pensions to public officials convicted of felonies (like bribery and theft) while in office that was allowed to die in committee…
…some of the Senators on that subcommittee were: Senator John Warner of Virginia, Michigan Senator Carl Levin, Hawaii’s Daniel Akaka, and (the KING of hypocrites), Tom Coburn from Oklahoma (I believe)…
Google tis Bill and find out some of the others…
…I emailed THOSE Senators, you should too (if you pay taxes)…
…here’s the letter I emailed:
Dear Senator ____,
January 11th, 2007 at 11:38 pmI am emailing about a report I saw concerning Senate Bill 2268 (I believe that is the number), the bill regarding stopping pension payments to Senators (and I assume allother public figures) who are convicted of felonies while serving in public office. I was quite shocked and dismayed to learn that YOU sir are a member of the subcommittee that let this legislation die in committee. How is it conscienable to you (and ANY member of Congress) that during these “austere” times when YOU especially have actively lobbied to have poor single mothers and their children cut from welfare rolls that you can countenance Dan Rostenkowski’s receiving over $126,000 per year in pension after being convicted of stealing public funds? How is it that Dan Cunningham will STILL draw a $64,000 per yr pension after being convicted of accepting millions in bribes? Sir I am outraged at you and your colleagues’ hypocrisy in continuing to kick this disgraceful can down the proverbial road! I will watch with great interest (and make sure that I alert every citizen within my circle of online bloggers to do likewise) to see what happens with this very important (and timely) issue. I am convinced that under the proper scrutiny more rational heads will prevail, and that the proper action will be taken to pass this sensible bill…VERY soon.
Hind sight is a wonderful thing. Maybe we should get down with our troops more and find out what they really think because when I speak to my friend in the military, he believes more troops will help. I feel like the media doesn’t give us a true picture of what is going on in Iraq.
hindsight,
January 12th, 2007 at 9:01 amDarrin
“Imagine what would happen if [Islamic] extremists who hate America and our way of life gained control of energy reserves,†he said. “You can bet they would use those reserves to blackmail economies in order to achieve their objective.â€
-excerpt from Bushiva’s speech at Ft. Benning-
Hey paul, hindsight (and ANYBODY else who wants to give Bushiva the benefit of the doubt)…
…can you hear me (and him) now?
January 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pmbig papa. It is possible I am naive, but I assure you I am not acting. I am sincere about my beliefs. I understand why you may disagree. I simply believe that conspiracy theories and secrets are appealing to many, especially if they further substantiate the participants viewpoints. I not saying what you believe is not possible, but I will stick with my point: If anyone in the media could break any of the stories (credibly) they would do it in a heartbeat. I am curious how much credibility you give to the theory that Vince Foster was killed by the Clintons. (If you think it is ridiculous, so do I, just as I have a hard time accepting the dozens of conspiracy theories that you subscribe to.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:48 pm