Public not buying Bush spin.
This evening, CNN ran a report on new poll numbers from CBS that show the American public was unmoved on Iraq by the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush’s speech. The National Journal writes that Bush’s spin is “falling on deaf ears.” A key takeaway: Before the administration’s PR offensive, 35 percent of Americans felt the troop increase was making the Iraq situation better. After the speeches and testimony, the number dropped — only 31 percent felt the escalation was working. Watch CNN’s report:
UPDATE: Greg Sargent notes the percentage favoring withdrawal actually went up.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
112 Responses to “Public not buying Bush spin.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
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.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Which is exactly why the Repubs hated it that Bush made a speech in the first place. Not only does he have zero credibility, everyone thinks that if Bush supports something, then it must inherently be wrong for some reason :-P.
Yay, my login works! Hurray comments :-).
~Sean
September 18th, 2007 at 11:03 pmBush can’t move up in the polls, unless the question is “Do you want Bush to retire today?” He’d have really high polling numbers on that one!
If he wishes he could be a soldier in Iraq, I don’t see why he can’t. He says he’s too old, but he’s never followed any other law, rule, or code of conduct, so why not bend this one?
PEACE
September 18th, 2007 at 11:08 pmSo TP has finally done a registration system and abuse report too.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:12 pm“I’m the Decider. I don’t pay much mind to polls, except when, later on, I use them to blame Democrats for my own failures.”
I hope that’s more an honest assessment than it is “bashing”, but I guess I’ll have to let the free market of ideas decide.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:16 pm“the polls mean nothing… unless they are about congress…then theymean sumtin. heh heh” the decider
September 18th, 2007 at 11:18 pmLooks like registration system might cut down the number of posts, per thread, but cause troll posts to decrease.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:29 pmsay what you will of the trolls, they kept the fire stoked.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pmSo I guess name-jacking will stop with the introduction of this new system. I wonder if some people (whose names needn’t be mentioned but who have the letter “P” somewhere in their name) will be able to register dozens of user names all with the same e-mail address.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pmGez, does this mean no more Whack-A-Troll?
September 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pmAre we finally reaching the Abraham Lincoln moment?
The moment of “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
And more people are wised up to his lies that defy the facts.
Of course, it makes no difference how many people are fooled or not, because he is there in office, and apparently no one is going to see that he leaves before January 2009.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pmGlenn Greenwald has a good piece on how the polls haven’t moved at all following the speech. Someone else in the media referred to public attitudes on Iraq as “fossilized”. But the corrupt Beltway media keep insisting that recent events surrounding the staged testimony of Petraeus has been good for Bush and bad for the Democrats. A large number of Washington reporters continue to pull hard for Bush and the GOP.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pmThis feels weird, like an arranged playdate, w/ a monitor. Guess too many folks weren’t ready for really, really free speech yet. Hmmpf!
September 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pmTesting link on my name…
September 18th, 2007 at 11:37 pmHeh, it worked!
No, King George, we are not buying your bullshit!
September 18th, 2007 at 11:38 pmEvenin’, Z. Welcome to the new, improved, and very sanitary TP!
September 18th, 2007 at 11:38 pmI’m not a Republican, and I don’t support total withdrawal.
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Jake D. —
Why not? If our country was under occupation by those that murdered, raped and tortured your family, don’t you think we would have mass chaos and wars? Especially if those occupying refused to employ you and other Americans to rebuild and do a crap job of rebuilding by others?
Oh I forgot… many do not see the Iraqi people as the intelligent, capable people they really are… with human emotions.
These people rightfully want US out.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:40 pmHello, TRoS. Any sign of troll activity other than Jake?
September 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pmSome other interesting findings of the poll are that 30% of Americans believe a withdrawal from Iraq would increase the terror threat at home, while only 11% believe a withdrawal would lower the terrorist threat.
31% believe the military action in Iraq has made the U.S. safer from terrorism, while 23% believe it has made the U.S. less safe.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:44 pmComment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — September 18, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
But then there is always registering many times using many email addresses…..at some point it will become too difficult and they’ll be back to porn in their mom’s basement and Sunny D and packets of Cheetos.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pmI’m going to recommend myself and see what happens…
September 18th, 2007 at 11:48 pmJake,
You care about nothing but your own interests. We already know that. Move along…
September 18th, 2007 at 11:48 pmNope can’t recommend myself, but I can abuse myself - nothing new there.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:49 pmHeh. I would have thought Willy would be the first to try that….
September 18th, 2007 at 11:50 pmThe depressing thing about this is, it doesn’t matter if the public isn’t buying Bush’s spin if the Democratic leaders do. And the one group that the media seems to strike a chord with as far as this crap is exactly the one group that needs to be the most skeptical of Bush.
Sadly, it seems that the public doesn’t mean crap if Democrats remain convinced by the media and pundits that ‘this will be bad for them/Good for Republicans’, and our voices remain cutoff from them by the same people who push hard for this right wing spin.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:54 pmIt seems that the people are ahead of the politicians on this one. So, it’s interesting to see so many Republicans still gun-ho about the war/occupation.
We should have a serious discussion about (our) national security and, of course, whether this war is serving our needs. Bush made a serious mistake that cannot be totally corrected–and this is the sad truth. No matter what we do, there will be many people killed for many years to come in Iraq.
It’s obvious to more and more Americans that there will be no military solution without a political solution to this conflict, and this ain’t happening. The Iraqi gov. is dysfunctional and there isn’t any progress of political/social reconciliation.
In addition our foreign policy and Bush’s stubbornness to maintain a big force there while not pursuing diplomatic (political) solutions isn’t doing anything good–for now and in the long run.
Speaking of occupation. If you are to do this (assuming for the right reasons), you must establish a “monopoly of violence”… that is, you have overwhelming force to freeze everything. We did it in Germany, Japan, and Kossovo/Balkans. I learned this as a first-year college student; I’d assume that Dr. Rice should have been aware of it too….
September 18th, 2007 at 11:59 pmI’d assume that Dr. Rice should have been aware of it too….
A singularly ineffective NSA and SoS. Wasn’t her ‘occupation’ to manage - she was just the apologist they sent on to the Sunday talks.
And the Army did know about occupations - Shinseki knew it and was ‘retired’, Patraeus knew it and yet the ’surge’ falls way short of the manual he wrote. Heck, most people on this board knew it….before the invasion!
September 19th, 2007 at 12:02 amJake,
You care about nothing but your own interests. We already know that. Move along…
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Zooey —
I clicked on the Recommend … nothing happened.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:04 amZ, did anything “happen?â€
A bunch of posts disappeared when I selected ‘top rated’ - other than that nothing….
September 19th, 2007 at 12:04 amWOO HOO! I got my screen name before a troll grabbed it!
September 19th, 2007 at 12:05 amI felt a tickling sensation…..thanks. ;)
September 19th, 2007 at 12:06 amSome other interesting findings of the poll are that 30% of Americans believe a withdrawal from Iraq would increase the terror threat at home, while only 11% believe a withdrawal would lower the terrorist threat.
31% believe the military action in Iraq has made the U.S. safer from terrorism, while 23% believe it has made the U.S. less safe.
Comment by Exley — September 18, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Just a little misleading, Exley. Yes, the % are correct, but what you don’t mention is that 11% “decrease threat” actually went up from 8% in April 2007, and a whopping 56% feel the threat stays the same. Not even sure where you got your second set of numbers from. Where are they in that poll?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:07 amWe’ve “occupied†Germany, Japan, and Korea since those wars. I could care less what “these people†want if our national security is on the line.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Jake D. — September 18, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
This is an invalid comparison.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:10 amWe’ve “occupied†Germany, Japan, and Korea since those wars. I could care less what “these people†want if our national security is on the line.
Comment by Jake D. — September 18, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
We occupied Germany and Japan for a very short period of time, and we invested huge amounts of money, effectively, in two nations with unified cultures. We entirely rebuilt their infrastructures, which we’ve been unable to do in Iraq.
We did not “occupy” Korea (which you would know if you’d actually been there when you claim to have been there), but staged troops in South Korea to prevent an invasion from the North. This is in no way a parallel to Iraq.
And, finally, our national security is not on the line in Iraq — unless you believe in mystical Arabs with flying carpets, who will swarm across the Atlantic Ocean and conquer America.
In which case, you undoubtedly also believe in flying horses, magic lanterns and genii.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:19 amIn the case of Germany and Japan, i agree with gummich.
They had pressed the war to us and our allies and the “occupation” was limited in time and scope.
iraq was a paper tiger on top of the second largest oil reserves in the world. we invaded illegally and are now stealing their resources for the profit margins of companies.
Korea, is a little different, in that we installed a regime and ‘occupied” it with military bases.
the 3 million or so “anti-personel devises” that litter the North south border and our 30k troops there, really shouldn’t be. my opinion.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:24 am#41 RoS,
If you go to the CBSNews.com Web page containing an article on the poll, you will see a link to a PDF of a 13-page complete breakdown of the poll titled. “After the Surge: Views of the War in Iraq.”
Go here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2007/ 09/ 17/ opinion/ polls/ main3268663.shtml
and then click on the link to the PDF.
The detailed breakdown of the poll also reveals that the poll taken before the Congressional testimony was 31 percent Republican - 32 percent Democrat breakdown. The latter survey taken after was 26 percent Republican and 34 percent Democrat. In short, the poll sample went from +1 Democrat to +8 Democrat — That’s a small but significant difference.
Thus, it should not be a surprise that there was a small shift toward the Democrat position.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:26 am“… unless you believe in mystical Arabs with flying carpets, who will swarm across the Atlantic Ocean and conquer America.”
Comment by gummitch — September 19, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Or paddle across the ocean in little rubber rafts… don’t forget the rafts!
September 19th, 2007 at 12:35 amThus, it should not be a surprise that there was a small shift toward the Democrat position.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 12:26 am
And again, you neglect to mention that 43% feel it makes no difference, hardly an enthusiastic endorsement by any measure.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:39 amDon’t forget the homemade PVC rockets! they could make it across the Atlantic, Allah willing.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:40 am“And, finally, our national security is not on the line in Iraq — unless you believe in mystical Arabs with flying carpets, who will swarm across the Atlantic Ocean and conquer America.”
Memories are so short….Would you have said that our national security was on the line in the 1990s from Afghanistan? No, I suspect not. But as we learned on September 11, 2001 whe 3000 innocent people were slaughtered, our national security was indeed threatened by Afghanistan’s provision of sanctuary to Al Qaeda.
If Iraq becomes a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations as Afghanistan was in the 1990s, Iraq certainly will be a threat to our national security.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:40 amBush and BetrayUs wasted our time last week with endless spin & happy talk, and Bush went down in the polls. Heckuva Job, Bushie.
Now reality hits — BlackWater operatives killed eight civilians on Sunday, during Ramadan, and the Iraq government ordered all BlackWater contractors out of the country. Now US personnel can’t go outside the Green Zone. The wheels are coming off the cart here folks, and we’re stuck with Bush who has no plan to get us out of this disaster.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:41 amWe’ve “occupied†Germany, Japan, and Korea since those wars. I could care less what “these people†want if our national security is on the line.
Comment by Jake D. —
But you did not answer the most important question….If your family and friends were raped, tortured and murdered by those from another nation occupying our country, because…. let’s say as someone here put it.. they wanted our blond women, wouldn’t you be fighting back? Wouldn’t our country be in absolute chaos? What give US the right to Iraqi oil?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:49 amIf Iraq becomes a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations as Afghanistan was in the 1990s, Iraq certainly will be a threat to our national security.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 12:40 am
First of all, Al Qaeda has no base in Iraq and never will. Iraq is a Shi’ite majority country and whatever “government” eventually evolves there will be Shi’ite. You want to worry about Al Qaeda, look to the miserable job being done in Afghanistan, or about the eventual collapse of the Saudi monarchy or to Pakistan.
We’ve been hearing all about how Iraq will descend into total anarchy if the US pulls out its troops. If this is true, they pose no threat to this country at all; they’ll be too busy killing one another off.
I mean, seriously. Pick an argument and stick to it.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:50 am“First of all, Al Qaeda has no base in Iraq and never will. Iraq is a Shi’ite majority country and whatever “government†eventually evolves there will be Shi’ite.”
Al Qaeda is indeed attempting to establish a base in Iraq.
And the idea that because the majority of the Iraqi population is Shi’ite it can never be dominated by a Sunni government completely ignores Iraqi history — Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government was Sunni and dominated Iraq for decades.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:55 amThanks for linking your name to the Zoo, gummitch. :)
September 19th, 2007 at 12:55 amAl Qaeda is indeed attempting to establish a base in Iraq.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Is that like Saddam “wanting” WMD?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:56 amIs that like Pakistan providing a safe place for al Qaeda?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:59 amComment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Exley,
You are forgetting one essential point.
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.
Al Qaeda is still in Afghanistan and just across the Pakistan border.
Bush invaded Iraq over lies.
The rhetoric leading to Iraq was “Mushroom Clouds” and we know exactly where they are.
All lies.
Meanwhile Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is still fighting NATO there, while we are bogged into a war/occupation for OIL.
Where is the fighting terrorists?
We practically abandoned Afghanistan.
Now with an overstretched military, drumbeats are beating for invading Iran??
AllI can say from a strategic standpoint is WTF??????
September 19th, 2007 at 12:59 amExley (OMG not him again) says, “IF Iraq becomes a sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. . . Iraq will certainly be a threat to our national security.”
Newsflash Exley: Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq on 3/19/03 opened the door to Al-Qaeda and made Iraq its new sanctuary. How about facing the reality that Bush’s disastrous War has jeopardized our national security. Bush and his Crooks pulled off the worst foreign policy fiasco in US history with unquestioned support from people like Exley. Heckuva Job, old boy.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:01 amZooey,
Even Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin know that Al Qaeda is attempting to establish a sanctuary in Iraq. Sen. Levin just last week introduced legislation that would reduce the U.S. military’s role in Iraq to fighting Al Qaeda. Sen. Clinton has proposed the same thing. No one on either side of the aisle diputs that Al Qaeda is a threat and that Al Qaeda is seeking to establish an Islamist base in Iraq.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:02 amThe only place we know al Qaeda is, is in Pakistan. And we wont touch them there because of the Trans Afhgan Pipeline deal.
the Taliban refuse to allow any activity like this from bin Laden (his words) because they were concerned about giving the administration a reason to remove them from Afhganistan to set up the TAP.
al Qaeda has never been a threat to us. they are even less of a threat now. We have armed the insurgants in Anbar and turned our backs on them as they “cleansed” the Shi’tes out of the area.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:05 am“Newsflash Exley: Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq on 3/19/03 opened the door to Al-Qaeda and made Iraq its new sanctuary. ”
A tired and pointless argument. Let us assume for argument’s sake that your statement is correct … The point is that Al Qaeda is in Iraq now and all the wishing in the world does not change that fact. And with Al Qaeda there now, we have to fight them in Iraq just as much as we have to fight them in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:05 amOf course the public doesn’t buy it. 70% of US don’t buy anything Cheney/Bush says. They have no credibility.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:06 am“al Qaeda has never been a threat to us.”
I am sure the families of 3,000 people slaughtered on 9/11, as well as the families of the victims of the 1998 embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack would disagree with you.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:08 amHillary Clinton and Carl Levin both want to maintain the occupation for other reasons. The specter of al Qaeda and the entire “war on terror” is a farse.
someone just proposed striking the phrase from the House Judiciary Record.
Dennis Kucinich and several other do not recognize the mystical al Qaeda as the threat to this nation that you claim.
So there are people on both sides of the isle that do in fact dispute this claim.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:09 amAnd the idea that because the majority of the Iraqi population is Shi’ite it can never be dominated by a Sunni government completely ignores Iraqi history — Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government was Sunni and dominated Iraq for decades.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Wasn’t our (eventual) point in going there to establish a democracy? (I mean, after the WMDs and the nukes and the link to al-Qaeda).
September 19th, 2007 at 1:09 amWell, Exley, had it not been for the catastophic failures of the one trillion dollar defense system that protects the eastern seaboard, they would not have been, now would they?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:10 amEven Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin know that Al Qaeda is attempting to establish a sanctuary in Iraq.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 1:02 am
You’re still using the “attempting” word. And I don’t see any link backing up your allegations, Ex. I’d really like to see one of those.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:11 amNo one on either side of the aisle diputs that Al Qaeda is a threat and that Al Qaeda is seeking to establish an Islamist base in Iraq.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 1:02 am
Less than 6 months after 9/11 and Bush’s rhetoric about getting Bin Laden “Dead or Alive”…..
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
—————————————————-
I just have to add,probably the most head scratching quote from Bush ever:
“And so, in my State of the — my State of the Union — or state — my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation — I asked Americans to give 4,000 years — 4,000 hours over the next — the rest of your life — of service to America.â€
~ George W. Bush, Bridgeport, CT, 2002-09-04
“That makes sense to me, don’t it?â€
September 19th, 2007 at 1:12 am~ George W. Bush, 06-06-06
and in case you haven’t been paying attention Exley, there is a growing number of family members of the victims of 9/11 who would like a real investigation into what happened that day.
If you wish to lump them altogether in your argument in the future, be my guest, but now you have been informed, so that choice will be purely yours to make.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:12 amal Qaeda has never been a threat to us. — willyoman
The people that lived through the Embasy Bombings and the USS Cole Bombing would probably beg to differ with you there.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:16 amExley —
You don’t suppose we are creating terrorists.. do you, maybe 10 fold? What is the difference between a terrorist attack and a preemptive strike? Maybe our terrorist attack, starting with the Shock and Awe - 4000 bombs in 48 Hours created a bit of anger? And how did the right hate America machine convince the masses the terrorists are other groups that had nothing to do with 9/11?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:19 amIs our country this stupid?
Zooey, You seem unfamiliar with Hillary Clinton’s stated proposal to keep a limited number of troops in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda there. Here ya go:
March 14, 2007
Elected
Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY
New York Times
WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission†in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing…
She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq†that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,†she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 03/ 14/ washington/ 14cnd-clinton.html?ex=1331524800&en=205ab0561a633900&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
September 19th, 2007 at 1:20 amYou ever heard of Operation Gladio?
Any ideas on when the CIA started working with al Qaeda?
Besides, the embassy and the USS Cole were in fields of operation in foreign lands.
the Cole was a war ship. In fact, It was a warship that was in a new port in Yemen that many didn’t want to see there, because they saw it as an infringement of their sovernty and the beginings of an all out invasion of the middle east.
no truth to that, huh?
but the “no threat to us” refers to the US homeland. So if that wasn’t made clear, pardon me.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:21 amAnd the idea that because the majority of the Iraqi population is Shi’ite it can never be dominated by a Sunni government completely ignores Iraqi history — Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government was Sunni and dominated Iraq for decades.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 12:55 a
And were no danger to the US, ever. You’re a racist, Exley, it’s the only explanation for your fear and ignorance.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:21 amNo Exley, I am familiar with Hillary’s bullshit. That’s why I don’t like her. We were discussing your problem with “attempting” and “actually accomplishing.” I was, anyway….
September 19th, 2007 at 1:23 amExley, you are working on the assumption that Hillary is some kind of representative of the liberal left.
again, not paying attention. We know she is bought and paid for. What is your point? She stood on the floor of the Senate and spouted Cheneys talking points before the war started…
while she owned stock in defense contractors. This helps your argument how?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:23 amsounds like Hillary’s plan will save a lot of American lives, and it also puts the lie to the idea that the Dems want to abandon iraq of pull out precipitously. You rightards can’t keep your lies straight.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:24 amThe United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,†she said.
The “Al Qaeda in Iraq” is mainly Saudis that flooded across the border.
We gonna stop that by bombing Saudi Arabia?
Hillary is not getting my primary vote.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:25 amSaddam Hussein’s Baathist government was Sunni and dominated Iraq for decades.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 12:55 am
The Arabic word Ba’th means “resurrection” as in the party’s founder
Michel Aflaq’s published works “On The Way Of Resurrection”.
Ba’thist beliefs combine Arab Socialism, nationalism, and Pan-Arabism. The mostly secular ideology often contrasts with that of other Arab governments in the Middle East, which sometimes tend to have leanings towards Islamism and theocracy.
The motto of the Party is “Unity, Freedom, Socialism” (in Arabic wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya). “Unity” refers to Arab unity, “freedom” emphasizes freedom from foreign control and interference in particular, and “socialism” refers to what has been termed Arab Socialism rather than to Marxism.
Whilst Sunnis may have been the majority in the Baathist Party, it was not an Islamic political party. It was secular. Read the above.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:28 amExley, that poll is weighted towards Democrats becaause pollsters can’t find anybody that will admit belonging to the party of treason, corrupton and perversion any more. The GOP has destroyed itself, and we will finish the job next year.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:30 amAny ideas on when the CIA started working with al Qaeda? — Willyloman
Sure do.
I still have old Soldier of Fortune mags with the articles written in Afghanistan about the Mercs training the Mujadeen, in one of those articles, the rebels identified themselves as “The Base”.
Do you know what Al Qaeda means?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:31 am#76,
Zooey, Your argument is puzzling, to say the least. Yes, Al Qaeda is “attempting” to turn Iraq into a sanctuary. They have not yet succeeded as of yet, mostly because of the presence of the U.S. military in Iraq. If we leave completely and prematurely leave Iraq, Al Qaeda’s efforts will be much easier.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:33 am#78
Actually, I have said here quite often that Hillary’s plan has a lot of merit.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:34 amThe Republic makes a great point. The Secular regime of Saddam was never going to work with, in any way, al Qaeda. they hated each other in fact. And any intelligence officer worth anything in the Middle East knew that.
Look up the Office of Special Plans.
the point is, we were sold on the story, because we didn’t know that (well, I did).
Like you are being sold on this story…
September 19th, 2007 at 1:35 amOnce again we see one from the right bring up Hilliary….it has to be:
September 19th, 2007 at 1:36 am1. RNC has the goods on her and are eager for her to win the primary to start the smear campaign.
2. RNC knows the Dems will win and Hilliary is the most corporate friendly.
MSM is pushing for Hilliary…But progressive talk and audience is going for Edwards, Kucinich, Obama… Hilliary is last choice.
RNC… stay out of our primary.
Do you know what Al Qaeda means?
…. the base?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:37 amRNC… stay out of our primary.
damn right.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:38 amwe leave completely and prematurely leave Iraq, Al Qaeda’s efforts will be much easier.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Well, first off, your lie. Nobody’s calling for immediate and complete pullout in the political arena, only we who see the truth. Secondly, the Iraqis will drive Al Qaeda out. Bush let them in, and in fact created them. You keep harping on their responsibility for the Cole and the embassy bombings, but there is no proof that they even existed then, or now. It’s a convenient bogeyman to scare the pussies on the right into supporting this gang of thieves and traitors. Even official estimates put the Al Qaeda presence at 2% of the fighters there, and those are just talking points. Al Qaeda is supported by Bushco, and is a subsidiary of that fascist gang. Our disappearnce from the area would end the terrorism against our interests immediately and completely.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:38 amWilly, you and I agree on alot, but Al Qaeda is a monster created by the US Government (Ronnie Raygun’s doing)
Unfortunately, We created it and like a dog gone mad, we are going to have to take them out.
Just like we keep having to do with every tinhorn dictator we prop up.
We have to stop creating out future problems.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:39 amExley,
September 19th, 2007 at 1:43 amOnly you like Hillary…
I will say one thing about you on the right… you all do walk in lock step together. As I said before the RNC is pushing for Hillary as you have the goods on her or you know the Dems will win and she is corporate friendly.
Zooey, Here is the relevant text of Sens. Carl Levin’s and Jack Reed’s proposed amendment to reduce the U.S. troop levels in Iraq and limit the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to fighting Al Qaeda in that country:
Senate Amendment 2087 - Introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)
S.Amdt. 2087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 )
Statement of Purpose: To provide for a reduction and transition of United States forces in Iraq.
(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition. –After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:
(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.
(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.
http://uspolitics.about.com/ od/ wariniraq/ a/ sen_levin_reed.htm
September 19th, 2007 at 1:43 amZooey, Your argument is puzzling, to say the least.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Sorry Exley, my bad. Just trying to follow your argument, and not veer off like you so love to do. I can spot another problem with your argument, but I have to go to bed — see if you can spot it all my yourself.
Sheesh…
September 19th, 2007 at 1:43 am“Unfortunately, We created it and like a dog gone mad, we are going to have to take them out.”
Well, wayne, we created them. but with the OBL task force disbanded a year or two ago, you think they really are as big as all that?
I notice no one here mentions the 7/07 bombings or the Madrid bombings with regard to al Qaeda…though they were both inicially attributed to them.
now, they are not. How about that anthrax? still no word on that huh?
the point is, al Qaeda did exist, and they are still a viable threat, as long as we need “the war on terror” the unkillable boogieman that will be with us, for the “long war”.
“We have always been at war with Eurasia”
But, what happened last year when we could have taken some of them out in Pakistan? They recalled the planes.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:46 amYeah, thanks Exley.
We started off with YOU saying crap, and now you’ve diverted to Clinton and Levin and Reed.
I know how it goes.
Later.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:46 am#89 “Well, first off, your lie. Nobody’s calling for immediate and complete pullout in the political arena”
Completely wrong. I see you are not familiar with Gov. Richardson’s position. See below….
C’mon, people! If you are going to post on a political blog try to keep with the news and at least be remotely familiar with political developments!:
Why We Should Exit Iraq Now
By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.
In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years — a tragic mistake.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be “irresponsible.” On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process — would be the most responsible and effective course of action.
Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.
My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 09/ 07/ AR2007090702063_pf.html
September 19th, 2007 at 1:51 amI’m out. Exley, If you don’t know enough about the issues, please put up a link and don’t spam the thread with all these copy and paste arguments that are off topic.
No one cares about your misinformation about the democratic party.
this spam will earn you many abuse reports.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:54 amNo, actually, Zooey, it started with you erroneously stating that I had no links to back up my assertions. I then proceeded to provide you with links and information of which you were unaware (such as Sen. Clinton’s interview and Levin-Reed Amendment which supported my position)….And now that I have done so, thus undermining your point, you are withdrawing. Typical.
As I said above, if you are gong to post on a political blog, try to keep up with…y’know…politics.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:55 amYeah, Zoo…you still believe Saddam was a threat to the civilized world…very informed of you. /sarc
September 19th, 2007 at 1:58 am#97
Actualy, I did post a link and posted only the most relevant portions of the full and lengthy article.
Moreover, you are incorrect when you say it was off-topic. It was a direct and relevant response to “Lefty Patriot’s” erroneous claim that no one in the political arena is calling for a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. As I have shown, Gov. Richardson has done just that.
You may call disproving incorrect statements “abuse.” Most people call it a discussion. If you cannot handle that or keep up, then perhaps you are right in your decision to leave.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:01 am#93 Zooey,
My apologies for my snarky posting at #98. I missed your posting where you said you were going to bed. I should get to sleep myself. We can pick this up tomorrow.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:11 amGood night.
First, we had ten times the soldier per civilian ratio…
Second, there was no indigenous insurgency trying to kick us out…
Third, there was no Japanese sectarian civil war after we invaded, same with Germany, South O=Korea, etc.
Fourth, only a moron like Bush (and you) would try to equate the wort foreign policy decision in US history (invading Iraq) with fighting WWII or it aftermath. They have nothing in common.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:13 amSo are we under threat from Christian Marines too becuse a whack-ob blew up the Murrah Federal Building?
So we should be sending in special forces to start killing christian dominoinists while we are at it, no?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:21 amBullshit.
The only thing stopping wannabe “al Qaeda” salfi jihadist in Iraq are Sunni warlords who are also fighting the U.S. occupation. We leave, “al Qaeda in Iraq” (a separate group of whackos, think islamic Timothy McVeigh’s, trying to leverage the “brand name” of “al Qaeda”) is dead as hell.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:25 amExley has gone from supporting an invasion in case Iraq might have WMD, to supporting an occupation in case AlQaeda might try to establish a base in Iraq.
And this is the same crowd that demands absolute, complete certainty that Iraq did not have WMD, but is eager to bomb Iran in case they might try to get a nuclear program.
What a disjointed lot.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:39 amI actually watched Bush’s news conference [I swore I would never watch him again]. It seems painfully obvious to me that all he did was just rearrange some furniture a bit and tack a “stay the course” banner on it. Our troops are still in that same god-damned living room.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:54 amWhat are the odds that Chimpy’s handlers [Deadeye Dick, Kindasleezy, the Rover (in absentia), Gonzo (in absentia), Rummy (in absentia), etc.] continue to whisper into his ear that his popularity at present means nothing — that all he needs to do is continue demonstrating undaunted courage and unwavering perserverence for future historians to come to their senses and rightfully and unanimously designate him as the greatest ruler of all time?
The Bubble Boy is no doubt convinced that history will someday treat him with the adulation he deserves.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:04 amBush’s legacy: the most Democratic generation in American history.
Thanks, big guy!
September 19th, 2007 at 7:50 amBy mistake, Bush will bring about the “great american democratic revolution” which will occur because of his botched presidency and his trashing of the Constitution. Otherwise, he will go down as the “worst president EVER in the history of this country”.
From the few people who could even stomach looking at him during his last speech, not to mention listening to his overt and in-your-face lies, I’d say that “Bush’s Presidency is ‘Officially’ Over!”
September 19th, 2007 at 7:57 amThanks Perry Logan for the thought. It is so true. The revolution against the Bush Cabal’s criminal spree is in the works, thanks to the Chimp in Chief.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:58 amNo doubt Bush’s numbers would have risen if he’d just gone into exile instead.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:11 amTest 1 2 3 of my login…
Even my die hard republican brother in Kansas isn’t buying it anymore. It took him six years, but he’s had his awakening.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:30 amThe difference between 35% and 31% is statistically insignificant.
Comment by Jake D. — September 18, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
Technically true — especially since most polls have about a 3% margin of error. But what IS significant is that there was no appreciable increase in support after Bush gave his sales pitch. Numbers going down — even by 4 points — is still not numbers going up.
Bush can no longer sway the American people to his side. I can’t remember that happening with any president since Nixon during his last days in office.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:44 am“in case AlQaeda might try to establish a base in Iraq.”
There is no “in case” here. The facts on the ground prove definitively that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and seeking to establish a sanctuary there. As I showed above, even the leaders of your own party acknowledge that. See Sen. Hillary Clinton’s New York Times interview and text of Levin-Reed Amendment.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:20 amWhat everyone is really missing here is pointed out by Glenn Greenwald yesterday -
http://www.salon.com/ opinion/ greenwald/ 2007/ 09/ 18/ wrongness/ index.html
that the media has been pushing this narrative that the MoveOn ad was bad for the left, and that the general’s credibility is unimpeachable.
People have not only tuned out the President and his cronies, but they are really beginning to tune out the media, especially the punditocracy. THAT is huge.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:24 amPetraeus painting a rosy picture is NOT a news story. If he testified before Congress and said things were going bad and we needed to withdraw right now how long do you think he’d have his job? It is news when top brass in the military, both current and retired, say that there is a problem.
Something about Eisenhower and being concerned about the military industrial complex comes to mind.
What amazes me is that nearly 70% of Americans want us out within 18 months and the Republicans are able to get up anywhere and say that they still support this war. There is an obvious disconnect somewhere. Either all of these polls are incorrect, or these folks are going to lose by such a huge margin in ‘08 they won’t be able to get elected dogcatcher.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:51 amExley
Assume that al Qaeda is trying to establish a base in Iraq.
What does that have to do with the security of the United States?
al Qaeda has a presence in various parts of the world, most notably in Pakistan.
We can’t go around the world establishing bases everywhere al Qaeda has a presence.
Or is that concept a little to difficult for you to understand?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:27 amGOP jettisons concept of victory in Iraq.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:44 amBush denies possibility of ‘victory’ in Iraq by choosing ’success’ as his new softer, lighter nomenclature.
If the public has hugely come on board that ‘victory’ in Iraq is ephemeral or bullshit as it were, then the Bush Propaganda Commissariat has rightly jettisoned the phrase for the new word ’success.’
That in itself is newsworthy.
And the word went out in the land, “We are no longer pursuing victory in Iraq, we are now seeking success.”
#115: People have not only tuned out the President and his cronies, but they are really beginning to tune out the media, especially the punditocracy. THAT is huge.
I agree with what you’re saying. It’s a shame that it has come to this–that the public has learned it cannot trust either the government or the media. I don’t think, ultimately, that this cynicism is good for the country, but we don’t have any alternative. Both the government and the mainstream media–especially the punditocracy–have proven themselves, time and time again, to be untrustworthy.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:46 amExley: “Yes, Al Qaeda is “attempting†to turn Iraq into a sanctuary. They have not yet succeeded as of yet, mostly because of the presence of the U.S. military in Iraq. If we leave completely and prematurely leave Iraq, Al Qaeda’s efforts will be much easier.”
No, that’s exactly 180 degrees off. Al Qaeda is able to set up shop in Iraq BECAUSE we’re there. If we’re not there, al Qaeda has no reason to be there and the Iraqi people will not allow them to be there. In fact, the Anbar Province “success” that Bush keeps bellowing about is because Iraqis kicked al Qaeda out of the area, not American troops. And, in Anbar, they’re Sunnis. In most of the country, they’re Shiites and they don’t like al Qaeda at all!
The only guy in Iraq before the invasion who even claimed al Qaeda affiliation was Zarqawi and the Bush administration turned down three opportunities provided by the military to kill him because they thought killing him would undercut a political argument.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pmYou can look at this poll and twist the numbers all you want, but the bottom line is that the public no longer believes what Bush says. He’s lied and bullshat us so many times that peoples’ eyes glaze over when he’s on television trying to sell us something else. He’s a complete failure as a leader; the worst president in history. Bush takes his place in history along with Buchanan, Hoover and Nixon, where he belongs, at the top of that little list. When he leaves office in January of 2009, the vast majority of Americans will breath a sigh of relief.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pmComment by Jim
People are beginning to realize that the media is the enabler for these lying thieving toetappers. I think it goes even beyond that. The fact that NOT ONE of these pundits have lost work or suffered for being so wrong over the last 7 years makes me wonder if they’re in on it too. At least some of them. I mean could a person make more innacurate statements, assessments or predictions than Bill Kristol? And then he is awarded a NEW column in Time magazine!
This cannot be coincidence or dumb luck. The fix is in.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pmJake: “I’m not a Republican, and I don’t support total withdrawal.”
Well then, you’re right there with Joe Lieberman, the most reviled member of the U.S. Senate. Congrats!
September 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm