72.
By on May 24th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
72.
Percentage of Americans who believe “generally, things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track,” a higher number “than at any time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The figure had been in the high 60’s earlier this year.”
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
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
Agree. We need to make sure the war is successful and quick. It doesn’t mean we should cut and run. If this isn’t obvious today, you libs are really blind.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:18 pmDuh!
Seriously….
May 24th, 2007 at 11:18 pmTP,
You forgot a word:
Percentage of Americans who [think] “generally….
May 24th, 2007 at 11:19 pmBushCo. doesn’t care.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:20 pmMany dictatorships operate with the support of the 10-20% who benefit
Agree. We need to make sure the war is successful and quick. It doesn’t mean we should cut and run. If this isn’t obvious today, you libs are really blind.
Comment by Eric
Too late!
The war is not successful — and never will be — stop kidding yourself.
The war has not been quick — over 4 years now!
Cut and run — please1 Not the stale talking points!
You wingnuts really are blind.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:21 pm72% is a pathetic minority on the planet Troll
May 24th, 2007 at 11:23 pmYeah, Eric, that quick and successful war that you morons predicted was over years ago. Too bad you dolts don’t look a bit further ahead.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:23 pmI doubt K-Street agrees. Them and Congress are rolling in the war profits. Probably getting second degree burns with money changing hands so swiftly.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:25 pmWow. I knew Bush & Co wanted to emulate Ronald Reagan, but this may be taking it a bit too far!
May 24th, 2007 at 11:31 pmYeah, terrorists are going to give up after 4 years. Wake up. It’s been going on since mid 80’s. Islasmic fascists are betting on the weak stomachs and determination of the American people and use Al Jazeera and TP to spread defeatism and propaganda to change public opinion. They are following the Vietnam model. Today, they were just handed a huge blow.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:35 pmThere is still that pesky 28% who are oblivious. They don’t know what’s going on, and they don’t care.
With that kind of public support for change, there still isn’t much happening on Capitol hill.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:36 pmOT – Is anyone covering this?
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a “catastrophic eventâ€, George W. Bush can become “a dictator”: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.” This directive, given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:37 pm4 years Eric? What, terrorist just popped up 4 years ago??? You righties are so incredibly short-sighted. You have no clue what actually fuels terrorists. Hell, you have no clue what 1+1 equals. You guys are idiots.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:39 pmAnd yet the Conservative Threat Level:
May 24th, 2007 at 11:41 pmYellow/High (Bill of Rights at Risk)
Islasmic fascists are betting on the weak stomachs and determination of the American people and use Al Jazeera and TP to spread defeatism and propaganda to change public opinion. They are following the Vietnam model. Today, they were just handed a huge blow.
Comment by Eric — May 24, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
Have you ever actually watched al-Jazeera, Farty?
May 24th, 2007 at 11:45 pmEric is not as stupid as Patrick, though.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:02 amEric is not as stupid as Patrick, though.
Comment by VerbalKint
How dare you say that! Eric most definitely is as stupid as Patrick.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:13 amAnd no one’s listening.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:19 amHigh probability 2006 elections were fixed in a way no one ever thought of
OK here is the info on the Blank Check Iraq Vote:
10 freshmen senators
8 Democrats
1 independent
1 Republican
Independent voted NO
Only one other (Whiteshouse) voted NO
The rest voted YES
Here is the info:
May 25th, 2007 at 1:40 amBrown (D-OH), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
who cares? congress doesnt.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:03 am“Agree. We need to make sure the war is successful and quick. It doesn’t mean we should cut and run. If this isn’t obvious today, you libs are really blind.
Comment by Eric — May 24, 2007 @ 11:18 pm”
time to get you enlisted boy.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:05 amAny idea how that Ned Lament guy voted? I know he was supposed to end the war; at least that’s what the nutroots said.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:09 amJust remember the 40 or so moonbats that post here are the same Air Amerika listeners.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:10 amSo Flaco, Beefeater, you two seem to be striking it off handsomely on your first date.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:20 amLISTEN DUDE/DUDETTES
THINGS ARE ON THE WRONG TRACK IN THE COUNTRY DUDE BECAUSE
- OF YACHTS DUDE
- LAND DEALS DUDE
- LOBBYISTS DUDE
- K STREET DUDE
- MANSIONS DUDE
- ROLL ROYCES DUDE
- DRACULA DUDE
- TOTALLY CORRUPTED POLITICAL PARASITES DUDE
- A COMPLETE CESSPOOL OF POLITICAL LEECHES DUDE
- CRONYISM DUDE
- TOTALLY CORRUPTED TWO FACED POLITICAL SNAKE OIL DUDE
- WHEELING/DEALING DUDE, POLITICAL FAST SMOOTH TALING DUDE
- SHIFTY EYED POLITICAL CESSPOOL DUDE
- SAY ONE THING DUDE BY REALLY DO SOMETHIN DIFFERENT DUDE
- DOING NOTHING 110TH CONGRESS DUDE
- AND FOR THAT MATTER 109TH, 108TH, 107TH, 106TH……. DUDE
- VOTE FRAUD DUDE
- IT’S RIGGED DUDE TOTALLY CORRUPTED AND RIGGED DUDE
NOW JIMBO DUDE ALWAYS SPEAKS THE TRUTH…
OH AND THINGS ARE HEADED NO… ARE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
BECASUE CREW IS HAVING TO SUE THE WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE
OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DUDE
AND WASHINGTON IS TOTALLY BOUGHT OUT DUDE
THAT’S WHY THE COUNTRY IS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION DUDE
NOW LETS START SHAKING OUT ALL THE POLITICAL CRIMINALS DUDE
AND THROW THEM IN THE SLAMMER DUDE
FOR A LONG LONG TIME DUDE
THAT………. MAY GET THE COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK DUDE
AND JIMBO DUDE ALWAYS SPEAKS THE TRUTH …. DIG DUDE DIG
May 25th, 2007 at 2:27 amThree sets of numbers out today tell a fascinating (and horrifying) story. According to the NY Times/CBS poll, only 23% of the American people agree with W’s handling of the Iraqi situation. Among the House of Representatives, it appears that 66% agree with W and Co. And, apparently, 85% of the Senators support W’s approach to Iraq. Looks like quite a disconnect between the Congress and those they claim to represent.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:33 amOH AND CONCERNING HARRY REID
THIS COUNTRY IS VERY MUCH IN THE WRONG DIRECTION BY THIS
FAST SMOOTH TWO FACED SHISTER
WHO SAYS ONE THING AND VERY MUCH MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THIS POLTICAL PARASITES, TERMITES, LEECHES,
MAGGOTS, TICKS, CHIGGARDS, ROACHES, BEETLES,
ROUND THEM ALL UP AND THROW THEM IN THE SLAMMER FOR A LONG
LONG TIME RELATED TO LEGAL BRIBERY AND TOTALLY BOUGHT OUT DUDE
THAT’S THE WAY WE GET THIS COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
ANYTHING PARASITE SUPPORTING NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, OUTSOURCING,
IRAQ, K STREET, LOBBYISTS
THROW EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IN THE SLAMMER
AND THAT DUDE WILL GET THIS COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
JIMBO DUDE ALWAYS SPEAKS THE TRUTH DUDE
May 25th, 2007 at 2:34 amForget the numbers! Forget the figures! Stop the chattering! But more importantly: Stop Bush & Gang! STOP THE INSANITY!!
May 25th, 2007 at 2:43 amWe should, as humble American citizens, petition the International Criminal Court to begin proceedings against G.W. Bush and R. Cheney for crimes against humanity.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:49 amBush might launch an attack on Iran while the Congress is on vacation.
Last time I tried to post this thought it got deleted, so must be true.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:50 amAS I STATED DUDE
THROW EVERYONE OF THIS POLTICAL CESSPOOL OF CORRUPTION DUDE
IN THE DOG GONE SLAMMER DUDE
AND THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY WILL HEAD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
REAL QUICK DUDE :)
THROW EVERY SINGLE ON THE THESE:
POLTICAL HOODLUM, PARASITE, LEECH, TICK, CHIGGARD, ROACH
BEETLE, MAGGOT, CRONY, TICK
IN THE FRIGGIN POLITICAL SLAMMER AND THROW AWAY THE KEY
FOR A LONG LONG TIME
AND IT WILL CLEAN OUT REAL QUICK ONCE TO ROUND UP THE CROOKS
DUDE
EVERY FRIGGIN ONE OF THEM DUDE EVERY FRIGGIN ONE OF THEM
May 25th, 2007 at 2:53 amLISTEN DUDE…..
IMMEDIATELY ANY POLITICAL PARASITE WHO VOTED TO STAY IN
IRAQ SHOULD IMMEDIATELY SHOULD BE ROUNDED UP DUDE
AND THROWN IN THE FRIGGIN SLAMMER
WHY –
BEING LEGALLY BRIBED
BOUGHT OUT
TOTALLY CORRUPTED DUDE
FRIGGIN THROW EVERY ONE OF THESE TOTALLY CORRUPTED SHISTERS
IN THE FRIGGIN SLAMMER DUDE EVERY FRIGGIN ONE OF THEM
May 25th, 2007 at 3:01 amOH AND I FORGOT ONE VERY VERY IMPORTANT THING
ANY OF THESE SHIFTY EYED POLITICAL LIAR
IF THEY MAKE A PROMISE THEN LATER BREAK THE PROMISE
= IMMEDIATELY TO THE SLAMMER
THAT…… WILL CLEAN THINGS UP
REAL
QUICK
DUDE, ANY FRIGGIN POLITICAL LIAR WHO BREAKS THEIR PROMISE
GOES STRAIGHT TO THE SLAMMER DUDE
THAT WAY, WE DON’T DEAL WITH SOME FAST SMOOTH TALKING
PARASITES LYING THROUGH THEIR DOG GONE TEETH DUDE
THAT’S HOW WE GET THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
AND IMMEDIATELY BULLDOZING K STREET AND FIRING EVERY FRIGGIN
ONE OF THOSE HIGH CLASS LOBBYIST SWINDLERS
INFACT THROW ALL OF THAT STATED IN THE FRIGGIN SLAMMER
ANYONE BRIBING, SMOOZING, PAYING OFF ANY OF THIS BUYING OUT
AND THROW EVERY BIT OF THAT IN THE SLAMMER
WILL CLEAN THINGS UP JUST LIKE THAT AND GET US IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION
FRIGGIN TOTALLY BOUGHT OUT DUDE AND CORRUPT AS HELL
LITERALLY A BUNCH OF HIGH CLASS FRIGGIN HOOLDUMS
CRIMINALS DUDE CRIMINALS
May 25th, 2007 at 3:21 amAn open letter to Ben Cardin, Barbara Mikulski and Steny Hoyer
You three represent me in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I have supported each of you and was once proud to say you represented me and my neighbors in the face of the Republican mismanagement of Iraq.
Today I am ashamed of all of you.
In the last election I spent many hours of my time volunteering on telephone banks for the election of Ben Cardin and Steny Hoyer. Following scripted commentaries that your campaigns wrote I promised my neighbors that a vote for you would bring about a change in the control of Congress away from the Bush Administration’s Republican rubber stamp vote. Now I feel like I lied.
I have often written to you, Senator Mikulski, and received responses that made me believe you listened to your constituents. Well, over 60% of us wanted you to only vote for the Supplemental Bill if there was an exit timetable. You sided with the Republicans. Now I can’t trust you.
I keep getting requests from the DCCC and the other Democratic support groups begging for money and I no longer have a desire to respond positively to those requests. Not when there is not the support for the position of the majority of your constituents.
You were afraid that you would be blamed by Bush for not supporting the troops. What you foolishly didn’t seem to realize was that he would blame you for that anyway, even though you refused to stand up to him and gave him all he asked for. I can admire the Speaker of the House and Senators like Obama, Clinton, Dodd and the others who voted NO and would have withheld funds from an administration with a 32% approval rating.
I will continue to oppose the war, with most of the citizens of this country, but I will have to think twice about supporting the three of you again.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:26 am#32 listen dude. these shisters friggin don’t care none of them
OR
this country would be headed in the right direction
listen to
they are getting a friggin 25% barely approval rating
that is such a friggin disgrace dude
a straight up mid C…. 75% for complete total corruption, how much
worse than failing can that possibly be dude.
it is so dog gone rigged and corrupted
IT’S
May 25th, 2007 at 3:35 amENOUGH
TO MAKE YOU DOG GONE PUKE!!!!!
#29. That can’t happen until January 20, 2009, when the Chimp and Deadeye are no longer immune because of their positions.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:40 amONE MORE TIME ONCE AGAIN (FOR GOOD MEASURE):
YOU WORTHLESS PIGS
May 23, 2007
Since the Democrats caved in to Bush, I’m having it very hard time not to express my rage. So, I won’t: Democrats, I piss on each and very one of you who refuse to end this lethal U.S. occupation in Iraq. You are costing our troops their lives and our nation its treasury. Why do I say that you Democrats deserved a piss in the face? After hearing that you guys are prepare to unilaterally surrender to Bush on the Iraq supplemental, despite a solid majority of the American people in favor of at least some kind of restraints on this pig at the White House who is running amok. Now sink this down into your yellow-bellied guts: we are not demoralized, we’re just totally pissed. The latest rumblings in Iraq is this stinky, smelly oil production sharing agreement that was the end game of this entire monstrosity Iraq war is generating increasing resistance while “we’re†forcing it down the throats in this puppet Iraq government “we†created. This is the only “benchmark†Bush has ever been interested in. So what’s the Democrats’ end in caving in? Big Oil? Keeping your asses on the Congressional seats? Looking “macho†through our military presence in Iraq? Kissing Israel’s ass? I don’t give a shit why you hand our troops in Iraq a death sentence. All I care about is this: GET OUR TROOPS OUR OF IRAQ, YOU WORTHLESS PIGS.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:25 amEr…it’s the Republicans who are supposed to cuss out the Democrats–remember?
May 25th, 2007 at 6:33 am3441 5 Troops killed this morning
May 25th, 2007 at 6:34 amBush: ‘US Would Leave if Iraq Asks’
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_2118788,00.html
May 25th, 2007 at 6:35 amNorth Korea ‘test-fires several missiles’ actually was 9
May 25th, 2007 at 6:37 amColonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff at the State Department, former Associate Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State, former Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College, and teacher of National Security at the College of William & Mary and George Washington University made the following edited remarks:
“Dwight Eisenhower believed the Â1947 National Security Act was a piece of legislation passed by U.S. Congress as the people’s representatives, and that he damn well ought to follow it, and did so to an extent that few presidents have since. The NY Times interviewed me about the detainee abuse issue. I feel so strongly about that issue I talked to the gentleman for about a half an hour. If any of you have any questions on that issue, I’d be glad to address them. For some six years at the Naval War College at Newport and then at the Marine Corps War College at Quantico, I taught some of the brightest people in America, 35- to 40-year-old military officers of all services, both genders, and all professional skills within the services. One of the things I taught them was an esoteric subject to most of them who were battalion commanders, fighter squadron commanders, destroyer or cruiser captains, or some other tactical-level position in their service theretofore of up to 15, 18 or 20 years. They came to me as tactical experts, as the very best. In most services they were picked out of the top 15 to 20 percent. As I dealt with the national security decision-making process, I had developed a two-part view about it. One side was academic; I had read the 1947 National Security Act that Harry Truman signed on 26 July 1947 and the amendments thereto, and understood that the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the DOD reorganization act, in 1985 I believe it was Âthat actually brought the 1947 act into a new realm, actually closed some gaps that had been in the original act and created the finest military staff in the world from a staff that theretofore had been desultory, at best, and put at its head the man who had been the titular boss of the armed forces before, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and made him the principal Advisor to the Secretary of Defense, the President of the United States, and the National Security Council.
So this was a monumental change. It was very, very tough to force the armed forces into “jointness”, which is the jargon that we use to describe it. Today, we desperately need a Goldwater-Nichols Act for the entire Federal government. We need to force the interagency process, for example, to conform to President Clinton’s PDD-56. It was a document that described very well how America should deal with crisis. The problem was nobody followed it. The problem was nobody followed it to the extent that when a Senate group was set up to investigate that very subject, and called my boss, then a private citizen for whom I was working in a private capacity, and said, “Would you come sit on our group? Would you help us with this Âbecause we really think the process is broken,” my boss’ answer was simply, “No, I won’t, because you’ve got it already. You can’t improve on what you’ve got already; you need to force execution of what you’ve got.” Now there are many critics who will say you cannot, in our system of government, force the executive branch to do something that it doesn’t want to do. The framers of the 1947 act, I do not believe, would agree with that. The other reason my views are twofold is my practical experience sitting at the right hand of a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a secretary of Defense by the name of Cheney, and watching Bush Sr. Âexercise foreign policy. So I’ve seen that aspect of it. I saw the Clinton administration up close. I have two approaches: the academic and the practical. The ground is so rich for an academic and for a person who has taught the National Security Act and what has come out of the National Security Act. As a practitioner and as a citizen of this great Republic, I believe that I have an obligation to say these things, and I believe furthermore that the people’s Representatives over on the Hill have truly abandoned their oversight responsibilities in this regard, and have let things atrophy to the point that if we don’t do something about it, it’s going to get Âeven more dangerous than it already is.
When the framers began to think about the 1947 National Security Act, these were probably some people who I think rivaled in ability those who got together that hot summer in Philadelphia and put together the U.S. Constitution. We had some really good people thinking hard about these issues. But one of the things that they probably wouldn’t tell you if they were here today Âis that they did not want another Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They even amended the Constitution to make sure they didn’t get one for more than eight years. But what they didn’t want was the secrecy, they didn’t want the concentration of power, they didn’t want the lack of transparency into principal decisions that got people killed, even though they’d been successful in WWII. And so they set about trying to ensure that this wouldn’t happen again. I don’t think even his critics would have argued that FDR wasn’t a brilliant politician and a brilliant leader. But let’s think about it for a moment as if you are one of the framers of the 1947 National Security Act. How often does America get brilliant leaders? I can count them myself on one hand. So we need a system of checks and balances and institutional fabric that can withstand anybody. It’s a real problem in our democracy. You have to have a system that is so elastic, so resilient, so able to take punches that at one time one branch can supplant another, or one branch can come up and check another. It’s the old business of checks and balances. If you concentrate power and you do it in a way that is not that different from the way Franklin Roosevelt concentrated it, but you don’t have someone who is brilliant at the utilization of that power, you’ve got real problems. You may have problems even if you have someone who is brilliant. Go ask people who’ve written about Wilson, although I wouldn’t say Woodrow Wilson had concentrated power quite the way FDR did. WW1 and the depression gave Wilson ample opportunity to do things to abridge our American Civil Liberties, for example, that even Abraham Lincoln didn’t go to in a conflict that produced far more casualties. But too much power, too much secrecy; they wanted to get rid of that. They also wanted to institutionalize, more or less, the very thing that had brought about their success in World War II. They wanted to institutional that success, and so they wanted to consolidate the armed forces, they wanted to bring them together. They wanted to put one person in charge of those armed forces.
About secrecy; Harry Truman, when he took over in April of 1945, didn’t even know about the atomic bomb. He’d had hints because he’d written as chairman of the Investigating Committee in the Senate, to Stimson, and said, “I’ve heard about this land-buying out in Washington; tremendous numbers of acres are being bought. What’s going on?” And Stimson said, “Please, Mr. Senator”, essentially, and Truman backed off, to give you a sense of the times and the seriousness of what was happening. But it took Stimson and Leslie Groves, who sneaked in the back door so no one would know he was coming over Âand George Marshall, who didn’t even attend because he was afraid it would bring too much attention to the meeting, and Leslie Groves, Brigadier General Leslie Groves, and Stimson briefed the president with essentially two papers in the Oval Office 12 days after he took office, and he found out exactly how serious this was and exactly what he had to deal with in terms of the nation’s nuclear program. So the process these people were going through was to try and make the system more transparent, make decision-making more transparent, make sharing of information and critical data more the likelihood rather than the exception, and they set about doing this through a legislative process. Now, how do you legislate that sort of thing? I heard the same thing about Goldwater-Nichols. I heard the same thing over and over again from my Armed Forces colleagues: you cannot legislate the Armed Forces into being a team. It’s impossible, you can’t do it. But they did it. They did it, and the people who did it did a fantastic job because they actually went about it in a very concerted, very organized, very disciplined way, and they built the information that they needed in order to make good decisions about how to make the Armed Forces work together. And it involved everything: education and assignments, and the professionalism of the forces. It involved almost every aspect of the armed forces that is crucial to building people up into a team, and they enacted it.
I used to use the 1985 committee print from the Senate on civil-military relations as my text for my students because it was a brilliant exposition of civil-military relations since the beginning of our country. That’s how good a job of work they did on that legislation. It was five, six years in the making. It was superb legislation. Can it be perfected even further? Probably so. It was legislation that changed things. We need something like that today. Decisions that send men and women to die, decisions that have the potential to send men and women to die, decisions that confront situations like natural disasters and cause needless death, or cause people to suffer misery that they shouldn’t have to suffer, Domestic and International decisions, should not be made in a secret way. All my life I’ve been taught to guard national secrets. All my life I have followed the rules. I’ve gone through my special background investigations and all the other things that you need to do, and I understand that the nation’s secrets need guarding, but fundamental decisions about foreign policy should not be made in secret. Let me tell you the practical reasons why that’s true: you have probably all read books on leadership; if you as a member of a bureaucracy do not participate in a decision, you are not going to carry that decision out with the alacrity, the efficiency and the effectiveness you would if you have participated.
When you cut the bureaucracy out of your decisions and then foist your decisions, more or less out of the blue, on that bureaucracy, you cannot expect that bureaucracy to carry your decision out very well, you’re courting disaster, and I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran. With regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita, and I could go on back, we haven’t done very well on anything like that in a long time. If something comes along that is even more serious, something like a nuclear device going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. Read it again sometime. Read in there what the founders say about the necessity of the people to throw off tyranny or to throw off ineptitude or to throw off that which is not doing what the people want it to do. We are talking about the potential for, I think, very dangerous times if we don’t get our act together.
Almost everyone since the ‘47 act, with the exception, I think, of Eisenhower, has in some way or another flummoxed the National Security decision-making process. John F. Kennedy trusted his brother as attorney general Âmore than he should have. Nixon took a position that was not even envisioned by the original framers of the act’s minds, a national security advisor not subject to confirmation by the Senate or Advice And Consent, Âand gave it to his Secretary of State, concentrating power in ways that still reverberate in this country. Jimmy Carter allowed Brzezinski to essentially negate his Secretary of State. I could go on, but no one, in my study of the act’s implementation, has so flummoxed the process as has this present administration. Remember what I said about the bureaucracy, if it’s going to implement your decisions, having to participate in those decisions? Let me add one other dimension to that. The complexity of crises that confront governments today is just unprecedented. At the same time, especially in America, but I submit to you in Japan, in China, and in a number of other countries, it’s just as bad, if not in some ways worse, the complexity of governing is unprecedented. You simply cannot deal with all the challenges that government has to deal with, meet all the demands that government has to meet in the modern age, in the 21st century, without admitting that it is hugely complex. That doesn’t mean you have to add a Department of Homeland Security with 70,000 disparate entities thrown in under somebody in order to handle them, but it does mean that your bureaucracy has got to be staffed with good people, and they’ve got to work together, and they’ve got to work under leadership they trust and leadership that on basic issues they agree with, and that if they don’t agree, they can dissent and dissent and dissent. And if their dissent is such that they feel so passionate about it, they can resign and at least understand and express the underlying problems that are causing them to resign, but that is not the case today. The case that I have seen for four-plus years is a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations and changes to the National Security decision-making process.
What I saw was a cabal between Cheney and Rumsfeld on critical issues that made decisions the bureaucracy did not know were being made. And then when the bureaucracy was presented with the decision to carry them out, it was presented in a such a disjointed and incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn’t know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out. If you want to read how the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read George Packer’s book, “The Assassin’s Gate,” if you haven’t already. Of course there are other names in there: Bush’s Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whom Tommy Franks said was the stupidest man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man. And yet, after the Secretary of State agrees to a $40 billion department rather than a $30 billion department having control in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge. Not only is he put in charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw itself in a closet somewhere. Now, that’s not making excuses for the State Department; that’s telling you how decisions were made and telling you how things were done. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address specifically warned us of the dangers of the Military-Industrial complex, and they are among us today Âin a concentration of power that is just unparalleled. It all happened because of the end of the Cold War. How many contractors who did billion dollars or so business with the Defense Department did we have in 1988 and how many do we have now? And they’re always working together. They’re in every state. They’ve got every Congressman, every Senator. It’s something we should be doing something about. You’ve got this “collegiality” there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President, and you’ve got a President who is not versed in International Relations and not too much interested in them either, so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this Oval Office cabal, and decisions that are often the opposite of those made in the formal process.
Let’s get back to Rice again. For so long I said to Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage, it is a dysfunctional process. And to myself I said, who’s causing this? Well, the National Security Adviser. Even if the framers didn’t envision that position, even if it’s not subject to confirmation by the Senate, the National Security Advisor should be doing a better job. Now I’ve come to a different conclusion, and after reading Packer’s book I found additional confirmation that it was more a case of real dysfunctionality. Rice made a decision that she would side with Bush to build her intimacy with the president. And so what we had was a situation where the position of National Security Advisor, seen in the evolution over some 50 years, who is supposed to act as the balancer, the person who would make sure all opinions got to the President, the person who would make sure that every dissent that made sense Âgot to the President, actually was a part of the problem, and on many issues sided with the President, and the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense. And so what you had Âagain was this incredible formal process, the Statutory Process, the Policy Coordinating Committee, the Deputies Committee, the Principal’s Committee, all camouflaging this dysfunctionality, and camouflaging the efficiency of the actual secret decision-making process. And so we got into Iraq.
George Packer quotes Richard Haas in his book as saying, “To this day I still don’t know why we went to war in Iraq.” I can go through all the things we listed, from WMD to human rights to Âterrorism, but I really can’t sit here and tell you why we went to war in Iraq. And there are so many critical decisions like this. Why did we wait three years to talk to the North Koreans? Why did we wait four-plus years to say we at least back the EU-3 approach to Iran? Why did we create the National Director of Intelligence and add further to the bureaucracy, which was what caused the problem in the first place? The problem is in not sharing information. The problem is not that we don’t have enough feet on the ground or enough people collecting intelligence or enough $40 billion eyes in the sky Ânational technical means. That’s not the problem. The problem is our people don’t share. The problem is the FBI is over here in its niche, and the CIA is over here, and INR is here, and Treasury is here, and the DIA is here, and the NSA is here, and the NRO is here, and god almighty, they never talk to each other. They don’t share. They don’t pass information around. They don’t work in the same cultures. They don’t have the same attitude about the information they’re handling, sometimes for very good and extremely important Constitutional reasons. Some are domestic law enforcement; some are not. There are all kinds of problems that need to be dealt with, but we are not going to make it into the 21st century very far and keep our power intact if we don’t start to deal with this need to change the decision-making process, and an understanding of how Cheney and Bush and their administration suddenly concentrated power in one tiny little aspect of the Federal Government, and let that little cabal make the decisions.
That’s not a recipe for success.
It’s a recipe for the speed and alacrity with which you can make decisions, but if all of you bring something to the fight and will be integral in the implementation of the decision I’m going to make, and if you know some things I don’t know and you might dissent because of those things you know, I damn well better listen to you, and I better figure out a way to get all of you to work together if we come to a decision and decide to implement that. That is not what this administration did. Instead it made decisions in secret, and it is paying the consequences of having made those decisions in secret, but far more telling is that America is paying the consequences. You and I and every other citizen is paying the consequences, whether it is the lack of response to Katrina or the situation in Iraq. Winston Churchill said, “America will always do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities.” We need to get busy and do the right thing. So why not get it right now? I don’t see any signs, other than signs of desperation, Âthat is to say, the polls are falling, people are finally listening, to a certain extent, to the evidence that’s building up, and so people are getting desperate. And so Rice gets some more flexibility, some more leeway, and we do this and we do that; that looks diplomatic. But I don’t see anything that looks coordinated because the decisions are still being made essentially in that small group.
The detainee abuse issue is a concrete example of what I’ve just described that we are going to be ashamed of. We need to say to the American people, this is not us, this is not the way we do business in the world. Of course in our history we have had people who violate the law of war, but I don’t think we’ve ever had a Presidential involvement, a Secretarial involvement, a Vice-Presidential involvement, an Attorney General involvement in telling our troops, essentially, carte blanche is the way you should feel, you should not have any qualms because this is a different kind of conflict. I’m a former military man, 31 years in the Army. So I understand the change in the nature of our enemy, but that doesn’t mean we make a change in the nature of America. But that’s exactly what we did, and we did it in secret. We did it in such serecy that the secretary of State came through my door one day and said, Larry, get everything, get all the paperwork, get the ICRC reports, get everything; I think this is going to be a real mess. And Will Taft, his lawyer, got the same instruction from a legal point of view. Will and I worked together for almost a year as the ICRC reports began to build and come in, and Kellenberger even came in and visited with the secretary of State. And we knew that things weren’t the way they should be, and as former soldiers, we knew that you don’t have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you have condoned it at the top. Whether you did it explicitly or not is irrelevant. If you did it at all, indirectly, implicitly, tacitly, pick the word, Âyou’re in trouble because that slope is truly slippery, and it will take years to reverse the situation, and we’ll probably have to grow a new military. We may have to do that anyway because my army right now is truly in bad shape, and I’m not talking about the billions and billions of dollars of equipment burning up in Iraq at a rate 10 or 15 times the rate its life cycle, I’m also talking about when you have officers who have to hedge the truth, NCOs who have to hedge the truth. They start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam, my war. They come home and they tell their wife they’ve got to go back for the third tour and the fourth tour and the wife says no, or the husband says no, and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel.
The signs are very concrete right now that the Army and the Marine Corps, and to a lesser extent the other services because they’re not quite as involved, that real problems are brewing. We need to craft a piece of legislation that does for the Federal bureaucracy what we did for the Armed Forces. We have got to do better than we’re doing today. We need people on the Hill who will accept the challenge of reformatting and reorganizing the interagency process of our Federal bureaucracy to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and we must investigate, and then do a major revision of our own processes. I feel as a citizen and as a person very much concerned with the military I need to speak out. If you’re going to exercise diligent oversight, then you better damn well have your own act together in terms of exercising that oversight. So Congress needs to reorganize. The executive branch is not organized optimally either, and I’m not sure the State Department even exists anymore except in the minds of the Foreign Service. Yes, we have embassies around the world, and if you’ve been to one lately you know they look like concertina-wired Abu Ghraibs. They send a terrible signal. I was in one in Honduras that just…I’m not sure the State Department is effective anymore. Maybe the Congress realizes that and that’s the reason their budget is so low, that’s the reason they’re so small. And with our current foreign policy, I’m not sure you can get around the non-utility of the State Department, so I would seek a way to revitalize what I call the diplomatic instrument. And it’s not just money. We really need to take a look at the National Security Advisor. It’s not a position that was envisioned by the framers. It’s a position that has become immensely powerful and personal in a way that is very difficult to get the executive branch to subject to the Advice And Consent of the Senate. We need to take a look at that, and protect ourselves against institutional imperfections, and in particular we have to protect ourselves against the imperfections that humans bring, and the way you do that is with firm laws.
Contrary to what you were hearing in the papers and other places, one of the best relationships we had in fighting terrorists and in intelligence in general was with the French. In fact, it was probably the best. There’s a huge difference between diplomacy conducted with all the parties that might be impacted by the results of that diplomacy and a decision being made and foisted on the world. Kim Campbell, the former Canadian Prime Minister, at a panel said, we’re not anti-American, we’re scared; we’re scared to death the giant has no head. You’re in the world and you have no head. When you put your feet up on a hassock and look at a man who’s won the Nobel Prize and is currently the president of South Korea, and tell him in a very insulting way that you don’t agree with his assessment of what’s necessary to be reconciled with the north, that’s not diplomacy, that’s cowboyism. I went to high school in Houston Âand I’ve got some connections with Texas. But there’s just a vast difference in the way we conduct diplomacy today. It’s gracelessness. Grace is something
we have lost in the modern world, but it very important. It’s very different, for example, to walk in with a foreign leader and find something you can be magnanimous about. You don’t have to win everything. You don’t have to be the big bully on the block. Find something you can be magnanimous about, that you can give him, that you can say he gets credit for, or she gets credit for. That’s diplomacy. You don’t walk in and say, I’m the big mother on the block and if everybody’s not with me, they’re against me, etc etc etc. Alot Âof Cheney and Bush’s decisions reflect their connections with the cartels and the corporations and so forth, and they have brought this sort of idea that the bottom line is everything. I will tell you, as a military man, the bottom line is not everything. It’s far from everything. When you start treating the military like a businessman would his business, you are damaging and perhaps destroying the potential of that military to win future conflicts.
- Edited remarks by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff at the State Department, former Associate Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State, former Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College, and teacher of National Security at the College of William & Mary and George Washington University.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:38 amAl-Sadr makes public appearance in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/
BAGHDAD – Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr appeared in public for the first time in months on Friday and delivered a fiery anti-American sermon in the holy Shiite city of Kufa.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:39 amIAEA report proves peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program
May 25th, 2007 at 6:39 amHOODLUMS I SAY
COMPLETE POLITICAL TRASH
FRIGGIN
ROUND UP THE DOG GONE
LYING, FAST, SMOOTH, BOUGHT OUT SWINDLERS
AND LEAD THEM ALL TO
FRIGGIN
SLAMMER
DUDE
AND THROW THE KEY AWAY FOR EVER DUDE
THAT WAY THEY CAN REALLY BE ACCOUNTABLE AND THE BEST
POSSIBLE WAY THEY CAN SERVICE
FRIGGIN IDIOTS — FRIGGIN DO NOTHING SWINDLERS
NOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW
IN REALITY WE ARE DEALING WITH A CRIMINAL CLASS
WHO WANT LAND DEALS FOR THEMSELVES
AND TO LEGALLY FRIGGIN ACCEPT BRIBES
IT IS SO DOG GONE CORRUPT, IT’S ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING
A COMPLETE POLITICAL CESSPOOL THAT IS 100% CORRUPT
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY SICKENING TO CRIMINALS
MADE A FRIGGIN PROMISE AND MUCH WORSE THAN DO NOTHING
THEY FRIGGIN SOLD US OUT TO GIVE BUSINESS TO LOAN YET
ANOTHER 100 BILLIONS DOLLARS
WHICH WE PAY INTEREST ON
DO YOU FRIGGIN KNOW THAT IRAQ SO FAR IS COSTING EACH
OF YOU SOMETHING LIKE $30,000 – 50,000 ????
THEY SOLD US OUT TO GIVE BUSINESS TO THE FRIGGIN RICH
BANKERS, ADD IN THE PORK AND THIS COUNTRY IS HEADING
TOWARDS COMPLETE DEBT SLAVES
IT’S SO FRIGGIN DISGUSTING DUDE, BARF THEM ALL TO THE
May 25th, 2007 at 6:41 amFRIGGIN
SLAMMER
#44 Not quite, Tobey:
“IAEA: Iran 3-8 years from atomic weapons
By ROBERT WIELAARD Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press
LUXEMBOURG — The head of the U.N. nuclear agency said Thursday he agreed with CIA estimates that Iran was three to eight years from being able to make nuclear weapons and he urged the U.S. and other powers to pursue talks with the Islamic country…
On Wednesday, the IAEA reported that Iran’s uranium enrichment program was expanding in defiance of U.N. demands that it be suspended, findings that could lead to new sanctions against the country.
The report also warned that the IAEA’s knowledge of those activities was shrinking.
“We are moving toward Iran building (nuclear) capacity and knowledge, without (the IAEA) in a position to verify the nature or scope of that program,” ElBaradei said.
ElBaradei would not offer his own view of when Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons. But he added, “I tend to agree with (CIA estimates) that even if Iran wanted to go to nuclear weapons it would not be before the end of this decade or sometime in the middle of the next” — three to eight years.”
May 25th, 2007 at 6:55 am“Much unpleasantness could have been avoided if somebody connected with the Wall Street Journal had, during the previous decade, stood up and pointed out the uncomfortable, yet obvious, fact that the paper’s high-profile editorial page often dismisses facts and ethics with shocking ease.
The Journal discovers Whitewater
All of that was highlighted during the 1990s when the editorial page, led by its conspiracy-buff editor Bartley, uncorked a decade’s worth of comical ‘enterprise’ pieces as the kooky staff of ideologue writers set out to connect the dots, for example, between president Clinton and the supposedly murderous Mena airfield in western Arkansas, where the then-governor teamed up with the CIA and Ollie North — yes, Ollie North — to run drugs and guns. And then there was Whitewater, a story that the Journal’s editorial page writers embraced and embellished to the point where they actually made their Mena coverage look sane. Better yet, convinced they’d done journalism a favor, they enshrined their Clinton-hating work in a bound, four-volume, 2,022 page set, Whitewater: From the Editorial Pages of the Wall Street Journal (A Journal Briefing), and sold it for $67, plus shipping. (A four-color poster laying out the overlapping Clinton crimes cost an extra $12.) Note that today, used volumes can be purchased via Amazon.com for just 9 cents each.
Paging through Whitewater Vol. I-IV, once readers tire of the endless allegations that never panned out and the intricate weaving that supposedly stitches all the conspiracies together, what washes over you is the Waiting for Godot pointlessness of the Clinton chase. Like the bums in Beckett’s play, Journal editors, unburdened by actual proof, were sure something big is coming, be it the imminent indictment of the Clintons or the pending presidential pardon of Susan McDougal. It all had the same name — Whitewater! And if it helped Journal editors to reassure themselves from time to time in print, well then, so be it: “The spring of 1994 brought a flood of Whitewater revelations.”
“The Starr investigation has suddenly moved to a high level of seriousness for all parties.” “Whitewater hasn’t been rushing, but it continues to bubble.” “Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater investigation is building a head of steam.” “The Starr investigation is showing signs of vigor.” “Whitewater continues to pound … the waves have been building. Keep an eye on the weather glass; the storm may be closing in.”
According to Sidney Blumenthal’s 2003 book ‘The Clinton Wars’ (Farrar, Straus and Giroux), there was a reason why the Journal’s editorial page clung so tightly to the belief that the Whitewater hoax would eventually produce political gold; the page was working in cahoots with independent counsel Kenneth Starr behind the scenes. Wrote Blumenthal: “A veteran journalist who had firsthand contact with The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board told me the story went back to 1996. He had learned then that Starr had approached Robert Bartley, the Journal’s editor, “seeking help” for “a mutual exchange of information on Whitewater.” … The Journal’s editorial and op-ed articles insisted that a great scandal was there. Starr asked Bartley for assistance, which would of course never be publicly acknowledged: the Journal would dig up information for Starr, and he would continue to serve as a primary news source for it. Starr soldiered on; the Journal continued to thunder and publish wild accusations — Clinton at the center of an international cocaine smuggling ring! — but the arrangement yielded only fool’s gold.”
What additional proof do the Bancrofts and Ottaways need that they ought to question the “intellectual honesty” of the Journal’s editorial page? A footnote: The recent platitudes coming from Peter Kann about maintaining the Journal’s integrity has been especially hard to take, seeing as how it was Kann, a former Journal reporter and later CEO of Dow Jones, who gave Bartley the green light to drive the editorial page off the cliff. Following the news of Murdoch’s $5 billion bid for Dow Jones, Kann released a statement regarding the importance of “ensuring the continued integrity and independence of [the Journal's] journalism and the continued pursuit of its public service mission.”
Yet in 2003 Kann specifically told The New Yorker that he had no problem with what Bartley was doing. “I don’t think there’s any position of major consequence that the editorial page has taken over the years that I would not be a believer in,” said Kann. So much for his concern about “integrity” as well as journalism and “its public service mission.”
May 25th, 2007 at 7:43 amhttp://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2007&itemno=300
How sweet it could be. Sugar to Hydrogen conversion (starch–coming soon to a store near you?) with yummy leftovers like high fructose corn syrup =)
May 25th, 2007 at 7:58 amAmerican Freedom Agenda Part 1-5
May 25th, 2007 at 8:03 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvLuy4ogxeE&mode=user&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlKfLxEhx_M&mode=user&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4DG8pi1JkQ&mode=user&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PVVlno3h1E&mode=user&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQXU2KP6d9I&mode=user&search=
Educating Rudy Press Conference
May 25th, 2007 at 8:35 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhjfuBYw8Ko&mode=user&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA&mode=user&search=
We need to make sure the war is successful and quick. — Comment by Eric
Looks like you short-sighted conservatives have already failed on the “quick” part of your equation. You’ve also failed on making it a “success” but you all are more than happy to ignore that fact and live in a state of denial.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:43 amRE: The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a “catastrophic eventâ€, George W. Bush can become “a dictatorâ€: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.†This directive, given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers.
The term dictator is loaded but I’m not going to disagree. One thing is certain a large terror attack will give Bush another “great opprotunity” as DeLay called 911.
Another attack is their ace in the hole. The best way to look at 911 is that Cheney and Rice stepped back and waited for it, ready to take advantage. Bush was of course disengaged and ignorant. Even if such was not the conscious plan by Cheney and the gang that was the way it played out. Call it a subconscious plan if you will, the result was a wet dream come true for them.
I won’t suggest for a moment that they would allow another attack as tens of thousands of individuals are working, some illegally of course, to prevent it. They are not in a position to ‘allow’ an attack. However they are in the position to benefit from one.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:46 amOpen Letter to Senator McCaskill:
In the last election cycle I contributed both money and time to your cause and was excited to be helping to build a more progressive country with your help. Last night you betrayed me utterly.
I cannot in good conscience support you in any way ever again. This will apply for any office. You received the same message as all Democrats nationwide: GO TO WASHINGTON, END THE WAR. Then you showed that you were exactly the same as all previous Democrats: weak, craven, cowardly, and stupid.
Never again, Senator McCaskill. I will be looking for your primary opposition in 2012.
Note to Rep Cleaver: thank you. My respect for you has always been strong and remains so to this day.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:50 amHey there, Eric (first post),
May 25th, 2007 at 9:50 amIf we need to make sure that the war is a “success,” however you might define that, I’m sure we can agree that it won’t be until George Bush and Dick Cheney are sent packing. So are you in favor of impeachment so we can make the war a success?
Jeez, do ya think CBS’s own Katie Couric will look at this poll and feature it? Do you think she will even glance at the huge number and try to give this majority a voice in the national nightly news? I doubt it. Gore is right; reason and reasonable people are under assault.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:05 am#22 Any idea how that Ned Lament guy voted? I know he was supposed to end the war; at least that’s what the nutroots said.
Ummm. You haven’t been paying attention much attention, huh?
Beefeater obviously has a case of CJD from eating beef with BSE.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:12 amOnly 29% of those polled are Republicans and it also has some interesting things to say on immigration. I’m sure TP overlooked these facts and will correct them later…chirp….chirp..
May 25th, 2007 at 10:40 am61% think illegal immigration is a “serious problemâ€, 70% think they weaken the economy because they use more in public services than they pay in taxes, and 66% favor requiring guest workers to return to their home country, and nearly half thing the threat of terrorism has increased because of illegal immigration, 70% favor prosecution of illegal immigrants and 62% believe illegal immigrants do not make the effort to learn English.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:43 amIf you guys wish to know more about how filthy our leading Democrats are, read this. We have put so much energy into these guys and now they stab us right in the back, does anyone have a clean record? Is anyone above blackmail and corruption?
May 25th, 2007 at 10:51 amhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1998/printer_70.shtml
I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones. - Albert Einstein
May 25th, 2007 at 10:55 amhttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/310622/fire_power/
That’s right Patrick, even though a majority of those polled think Immigration is a serious problem, only 27% of those, by your own words, would now call themselves a Republican… So the Bush Administration has pissed off both wings of the American electorate. Something to be proud of there, eh?
And the reason TP didn’t refer to it is their audience aren’t morons like you and could understand that if only 27% declare themselves Republicans, it illustrates a catastrophic collapse in idenitification with Bush’s version of the Republican Party.
Twenty Seven Percent.
27%
Out of 100, only 27 still call themselves Republicans.
Just in case anyone else hasn’t noticed…. people won’t call themselves Republicans anymore. Only 27%.
Thanks, Patrick for reminding us!
May 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pmCBS NEWS/NY TIMES POLL
“What do you think is the most important problems facing the country today?”
War in Iraq 31%
Economy/jobs 8%
Gas/oil crisis 7%
Immigration 7%
Health care 5%
Terrorism 3%
President Bush 3%
(…)
Just some pesky facts for reality-challenged Patrick and co. When asked to say what the biggest problem for the country is (without having to chose from a pre-defined list), immigration is mentioned by only 7% of respondents. Bush is now seen by Americans as as much of a threat to the country as Bin Laden…
May 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThis is what appalls me: it is quite patently obvious that, despite their rhetoric, neither the Bushists nor ANY of the war supporters actually believe that the Iraq war is essential to our national survival. If they DID believe that, their actions would have been completely different. There are any number of proofs of this: the lack of planning for the aftermath of the invasion; the paltry number of resources committed compared to the size of the task; the fact that despite all the blather about WMDs they didn’t even bother tasking anyone to secure known military weapons depots; above all the fact that despite mounting evidence of the strain being put on our armed forces from top to bottom there have been no calls for enlistment, let alone any serious effort to institute a draft.
That last bit is critical. On the one hand, grand proclamations that a “defeat” in Iraq would be a disaster for us. On the other, absolutely no sense of urgency about providing the resources necessary for the massive, long-term commitment required. Why? Why? I’ll tell you why. It’s because they themselves know that the story doesn’t hold up. They themselves know that the minute they really started ACTING like they believed their own rhetoric, the whole thing would collapse.
So all we get is this politically useful pretense. It’s a fraud, and the proof is that even the wingnuts don’t come within a million miles of calling for (let alone demonstrating) anything like the kind of sacrifice and national commitment necessary to winning a genuine existential threat of the kind they claim “Islamo-fascism” to be. It’s a lie, pure and simple. Some of think they believe it, I have no doubt, but the evidence abounds all around them that in fact they really don’t.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:07 pmCommenting in blogs is not enough.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pmHigh probability 2006 elections were fixed in a way no one ever thought of
*That’s* what you call “high probability?”
I think you need a *wee bit* more evidence to show that it’s not simply a matter of nervous freshman Senators from more conservative parts of the country making a bad judgment call.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:00 pmPeople are seeing the light.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:48 pmsorry, Eric—-no blank check for endless war.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:24 am