37 percent:
By on Dec 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am
37 percent:
Number of Americans who believe “victory remains possible” in Iraq, down from 40 percent in November. Fifty-seven percent say that “the most responsible” U.S. course is to pull most troops out of Iraq by the beginning of 2009.
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
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Didn’t we already achieve victory with “Mission Accomplished”? What is the latest definition of “Victory”? Democracy in Iraq? Stability? economic growth? No bombers for a week?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:41 amWhy do so many Americans hate America?
Comment by Dr. Matt — December 21, 2007 @ 10:39 am
I don’t know. But it’s nice to see that their number has dropped in the last month, even if it’s only 3%
December 21st, 2007 at 10:41 amGoddamn oil contracts.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:41 amWhat we need’s another surge. Get those numbers back up. Jason Hendler: be an army of one. Your country needs you for the next surge.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:49 amWhy do the leaders of this nation hate the American People?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:51 amIt dropped? Even with the quiet acquiescence by the media to stop reporting on events in Iraq? I’m surprised.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:51 amPersonally, I am truly in a moral quandry. As we broke it, I cannot condone just pulling out and letting everyone kill each other.
OTOH – I cannot see our current presence as doing anything but leading to more violence.
Yet, I am incredulous that 37% say that the so-called war can be won ? (So called as I don’t support that Iraq was a legitimate “war” and I don’t see that the “war on terror” is a true war).
The only explanation I can think of is that the 37% define victory as nuking the mid-east so that no one can live there .
December 21st, 2007 at 10:52 amWhy do the leaders of this nation hate the American People?
Comment by RUCerious
Because we’re not full of crude oil reserves, like those “rogue” ME countries…
December 21st, 2007 at 10:52 amThe only explanation I can think of is that the 37% define victory as nuking the mid-east so that no one can live there .
Comment by MapleStreet
Unfortunately, I think your dead-on. (pun intended)
December 21st, 2007 at 10:53 amThe only reason a 6% approval rating increase could be described as “impressive” is because when Shrub does NOTHING, his ratings improve!
December 21st, 2007 at 10:55 amComment by good_golly — December 21, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Let me get this straight. You’re bragging that a 60% disapproval rating is something to crow about?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:56 amLeave it to the bottom-feeders to “think” that 37% represents “strong” support.
That kool-aid must be laced with PCP.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:56 amI’m amazed that, in spite of the liberal media showing nothing but bad news form Afghanistan and Iraq, support for the war on terror remains still that strong.
Comment by Frank M — December 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am
What does the quagmire in Iraq have to do with the “War on Terror?”
December 21st, 2007 at 10:59 amSuccess to the Bush Republicans is a permanent occupation of Iraq.
-GSD
December 21st, 2007 at 10:59 amOnly in Bush Republican Iraq War World would the people who live in fear of “Islamo-fascists” be crowing about US tax dollars being spent on building Islamic schools.
-GSD
December 21st, 2007 at 11:01 amI’m amazed that, in spite of the liberal media showing nothing but bad news form Afghanistan and Iraq, support for the war on terror remains still that strong.
Comment by Frank M — December 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am
December 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am
“Liberal media” is figmo of your imagination.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amWhere is any attempt to explain what the definition of Victory is? Blathering on about miniscule % points has as much meaning as that pimple on your ane.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:10 amSuccess=A political theocracy hostile to womens rights.
Sort of like the Bush Fundiegelical base.
-GSD
December 21st, 2007 at 11:10 amThe only explanation I can think of is that the 37% define victory as nuking the mid-east so that no one can live there .
Comment by MapleStreet
And the thing that they are missing is that all that oil will be of no use to us when it is under uninhabitable soil.
There will be no “victory” in Iraq. You can’t win an occupation of another country. I really do wish that everyone would stop calling it a war. It is NOT a war, it is an occupation of another country against their will. How in the hell can you “win” that?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:10 amDid anybody ask the 37% what their definition of “victory” is? When one side finally wipes out the other in their civil war? When we finally get all their oil? When all the fat cats with the no-bid contracts decide they have gorged from the trough enough? What?
Or do the 37% define victory as “when our leaders say we have won”?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:11 amOnly a radical reich-winger would believe an approval rating of 33% is “impressiveâ€.
Comment by Dr. Matt
And that is not Bush’s overall poll numbers, that was the number who approve of the job he is doing in Iraq. Bush’s overall poll numbers are still in the 20’s.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:12 amYo Frankie! What I cant understand is why Faux News never reports any of the overflowing “Good News From Iraqâ„¢”??
Could it be that Faux News is part of Liberal Media Conspiracyâ„¢???
December 21st, 2007 at 11:13 amI’m amazed that, in spite of the liberal media showing nothing but bad news form Afghanistan and Iraq, support for the war on terror remains still that strong.
Comment by Frank M
Sorry Francine, that dog don’t bark any longer. The “liberal” media has stopped reporting on Iraq and Afghanistan completely and that is the reason why the support for this occupation is still at 37%. If the “liberal” media reported daily about the miserable conditions in Iraq, the amount of money we are spending for very little return on investment and the corruption that is going on over there in the Iraqi government and with our contractors, the support for this occupation would be pretty close to 24% by now. Then there is the inconvenient truth that the Iraqi people and Parliament (the only truly elected people in Iraq) want us to leave. The only ones who want us to stay are the corrupt puppet Maliki and his cronies. They have learned corruption well from the Bush Crime Family.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:17 amI’m amazed that, in spite of the liberal media showing nothing but bad news form Afghanistan and Iraq, support for the war on terror remains still that strong.
Comment by Frank M — December 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Even the spin from the wingnuts is looking more pitiable these days. Some buzzwords are old chestnuts — like “liberal media” — and they still cling to the debunked belief that our occupation of Iraq somehow has to do with the mythical “War on Terror”, but to interpret a 37% figure and falling as strong (despite a decisive majority of Americans wanting troops out) is just empty posturing.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:17 amYou forgot to mention this from the same article: “Bush’s approval rating on Iraq rises to 33% from 27% in November.†Obviously, the war is still unpopular, but a gain of 6% in a single month is impressive.
Comment by good_golly — December 21, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Just shows there are way too may Americans as dumb as you.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:18 amIraq me Dave Patraeus!
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/67641/detail/
December 21st, 2007 at 11:18 amThat depends on :
1. What victory is..
2. Who defines it..
3. When the definition was made…
All of the above have been changed over time.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:19 amOne description by one offiical might not match the other’s official description of victory.
Since our goals of achieving victory seem to always change, then the word ‘Victory’ becomes an elastic one…depending on who said it and when.
Since it is apparent that there is no defined agreement on what victory is in Iraq, then asking to know the percentages of who supports victory becomes an illusive attempt.
Frank, please provide the good and the working out stuff. All americans want to know that their troops aren’t dying needlessly. That’s why I asked what is the definition of Victory. We all want to believe that our govt. is wisely spending our money. We all want to believe that peace can be achieved but there hasn’t been much to back that.
No stable govt. in Iraq. Afghanistan has never been handled correctly and the Taliban / AQ are gaining strength. OBL is safe in a country that says they are on our side. Billions spent without proper planning.
State your case and defend your points. I want you to be heard. So far, you haven’t stated anything more than you don’t like to hear from progressives. What do you hang your hat on?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:21 amIt is strong, considering that all the people see on the news is the biased “nothing’s working out right†worldview the liberal media wants to them to see.
Comment by Frank M — December 21, 2007 @ 11:14 am
You seem to be convinced that everything is just going peachy over in Iraq, but all of our media (even Fox News!) have some perverted agenda to twist things around just to show Americans that this war is a bad idea. Interesting fantasy.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why the media shows bad stuff happening in Iraq (when they report on Iraq at ALL — coverage is getting less and less all the time) is because bad stuff might really be happening over there?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:21 amWhat is the latest definition of “Victory� Democracy in Iraq? Stability? economic growth? No bombers for a week?
Comment by hellinabucket — December 21, 2007 @ 10:41 am
I recently asked this very question on a local message board. The answer was something like this:
Victory means not being hit with a nuclear weapon. The person posting this response also was kind enough to accompany his response with a picture of a nuke explosion so that I got the idea.
As Lynn Cheney would say, I guess all the other terrorist attacks we’ve seen since invading Iraq, such as those in Spain and London, don’t count…especially since no nukes were involved.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:24 amWhy do so many Americans hate America?
Comment by Dr. Matt — December 21, 2007 @ 10:39 am
I don’t know. But it’s nice to see that their number has dropped in the last month, even if it’s only 3%
Comment by toasterhead
————————————————-
Here is a perfect example of the inverted moral universe in which the moonbat mind resides.
According to Matt, believing that the United State will be successful in Iraq = hating America.
And the brilliant “toasterhead” chimes in how nice it is to see the number who think we will succeed is dropping once again.
It seems that for the Left, the only thing that would make them more happy than seeing Dick Cheney drop dead is American defeat on the battle field.
But then, the Left has always supported Americas enemies.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:29 amhttp://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2
New WPO Poll: Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, But Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq
Half of Iraqis Approve of Attacks on US Forces, Including 9 Out of 10 Sunnis
And this is victory? The surge is working?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:30 am>the biased “nothing’s working out right†worldview the liberal media >wants to them to see.
your delusional. biblo said it best in a previous post. the media are whores selling toothpaste to the highest bidder and anything that isnt palatable to adverstisers isnt noows. the only men who should waste thier time giving a sh1t whose t1tf#cking anna nicole is the 1 percent of the population whose doing it. to the rest, its a pure opiate…
December 21st, 2007 at 11:31 ampray tell , dear frank, can you mention to us the number of news stations who came out and showed clips of rumsfeld saying “we know where the weapons are” then say “look, hes lying is @ss off”.
can you show us some examples of how much airplay dick cheneys 1994 “taking baghdad would be a terrible idea” flp flop got? for the life of me, i just cant seem to figure out why the liberal media isnt using the ample supply of ammo your side has provided..
I’m amazed that, in spite of the liberal media showing nothing but bad news form Afghanistan and Iraq, support for the war on terror remains still that strong.
Comment by Frank M — December 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Did you ever respond to my request to show us on FoxNews.com all the “good news” stories?
Do you know who Baby Noor is? Do you know that one of the soldiers involved in her situation said on CNN that there are “thousands” of good-news stories just like her’s in Iraq?
Do you know that CBS’ Lara Logan tried to get info on the good-news stories and our very own State Dept. rebuked her, telling her that if they reported on, say, a new hospital or school or waste treatment plant opening, the terrorists would find out about them and go destroy them? The administration b*tches about no good news coming out of Iraq, while at the same time turning reporters away. What do you think about that, Frank?
Perhaps you’d like to point us to 20 or 30 good-news stories, Frank. Fox’s archives are standing by.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:32 amAs you all cheer for America’s enemies and root for our defeat, I’d like to take a moment and wish you all a lovely and meaningful Christmas.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:32 amNot being hit with a nuclear weapon is that person’s answer. sad
December 21st, 2007 at 11:37 am>According to Matt, believing that the United State will be successful in Iraq >= hating America.
in retarded inbred reichwing heil=nut world, beleiving that someone wrapped in an american flag will not burn to death if they are doused with gasoline is unpatriotic.
and acknowledging that there actually was some logical reason why we
December 21st, 2007 at 11:39 amsold saddam gas and weapons is…well…9-11 changed everything or something. most people are just acknowledging reality:that there can be no positive outcome in some situations. do you deny there are some situations that could not conceivably result in positive outcomes? or are you just so consumed by flaghumping jingoistic pride that you deludedly beleive ameirca woudl never involve themselves in such a situation?
Charles James Napier, I am very interested in reading your interpretation of “Victory”. I am making this very clear to you now. I do not wish for any defeat of America and I don’t root for any of our enemies. Those are nonstarters in any conversation.
What would equate to victory in your eyes?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:40 amWell that’s lovely of you, Chuck. Is that before you kick me in nuts, or
will you sing me this “nice guy” bullsh*t after the act.
That last post of yours really sums you up nicely.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:42 amBut then, the Left has always supported Americas enemies.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:29 am
And you wonder why I called you an idiot?
You come to a progressive blog and write unbelievably stupid comments like this and you expect to be treated with respect?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:43 amAs you all cheer for America’s enemies and root for our defeat, I’d like to take a moment and wish you all a lovely and meaningful Christmas.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Wow, Charles. That was a very generous gesture, masking a surly and thoroughly obnoxious insult.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:43 amI bet those 37 percenters work for or are in some way related to the oil industry.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:43 amAs you all cheer for America’s enemies and root for our defeat, I’d like to take a moment and wish you all a lovely and meaningful Christmas.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Smug, hypocritical and dishonest. Napier, you’re a perfect example of why “conservatives” are held in contempt.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:45 amI bet those 37 percenters work for or are in some way related to the oil industry.
Comment by Fools on the Hill
———————————————–
Yeah, that’s it.
Good greif.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:45 am>As you all cheer for America’s enemies
your the one cheering for them. they are sitting in the white house. they are doing everythign they can to destroy the system of checks and balances our founding fathers so deliberately and wisely created. in your and thier fantasy world, the only purpose the judicial branch would serve would be to make big decisions like who owns the spotted cow found wondering on the highway. pay tell, dear sir, can you provide us with a definition of “victory” in the way on terror so common folk like us can know when its over?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:45 amgummitch,
Smug perhaps, but hypocritical and dishonest?…How so?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:46 amSmug perhaps, but hypocritical and dishonest?…How so?
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:46 am
“You people are filthy traitors but Merry Christmas.”
’nuff said.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:48 amDon’t you have some south Asian savages to perfect, Charlie?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:49 amWhy do you continue to come here and dump your loads when the work of the creator is still undone
What will victory in Iraq be? When I wake up and turn on the news what will have happened that will be victory? Will it be the emotion terror signing a surrender agreement on the deck of the USS Mission Accomplished?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:53 amIt’s a perpetual Orwellian war that will not end until someone says enough, that’s it, and ends it.
Christmas Bells
I HEARD the bells on Christmas Day
Their old, familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along
The unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Till ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime,
A chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Then from each black, accursed mouth
The cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound
The carols drowned
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn
The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth,” I said;
“For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men.”
~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
December 21st, 2007 at 11:53 am> but hypocritical
hipocritical because you support the biggest threat to america that americans have ever faced..the criminals who hijacked the government.. the worse and most dangerous enemies come from withing, seizing power by claiming there is an eternal invisible, and perpetual war going on within that the people must need be protected from.
give us your definition of victory over terror and stop spewing your patronizing crap..
December 21st, 2007 at 11:56 amBut then, the Left has always supported Americas enemies.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Huh. I could have sworn that it was a *cough* Republican who was caught shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
And it was a *cough* Republican governor who hosted the Taliban when they visited his state not too long ago.
Oh, wait. That was before 9/11. How silly of me.
Anyway…I believe it was a *cough* Republican Secretary of Defense who refused to invade Baghdad in Gulf War I, agreeing with his Republican boss that it would be a major f**k up just as we are seeing now.
This same Republican supported military cutbacks in the 1990s due to the collapse of the Cold War, something that a Democratic president also supported yet he was blamed for a “weakened” military.
I believe it was a Republican administration who was illegally involved with our enemy Iran in the Iran-Contra affair.
I believe it was a Republican administration who turned and looked away as Saddam Hussein carried on his murderous ways against his own people.
Finally, it was a Republican administration who didn’t do a damn thing in the months prior to prevent the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil, despite a month earlier being handed a simple sheet of paper indicating a leading terrorist was determined to attack us. And then sat in a school room for 7 minutes with a dumb look on his face AFTER being told a second jet had hit the WTC.
Therefore, you may now STFU.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:56 am>Christmas Bells
My theory about jesus was that he was an inbred which amplified his families already strong psychic powers, and gave him the abilitiy to manipulate people easily, and the whole “virgin birth” thing was just a way for mary’s dad to try and convince the world he wasnt porking his daughter. whats your theory charles?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:58 amSmug perhaps, but hypocritical and dishonest?…How so?
Comment by Charles James Napier
Because snide and transparent disrespect for TP bloggers is your stock in trade. Only someone with a split personality would provide the left handed compliment – or greeting – you did, and not expect us to take offense.
And it does track nicely with the GOP version of things, an example being No Child left Behind. All good words, but no good deeds. Or CO2 emissions: Bush said he would bring them down, Cheney and friends de-railed it.
Say one thing, do another – all the while saying your still going to do that one thing. I think that is called lying.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pmComment by Chocolate Jesus — December 21, 2007 @ 11:58 am
My theory is that he was an alien from a planet circling Alpha Centauri. His psychic energy allowed him to wow the masses with miracles, as he gave them a path to spiritual fulfillment.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pmSince his untimely demise and subsequent self healing, his followers have managed to corrupt his message to the point that he refuses to be associated with them.
Would you people please try to stay On Topic.
Thanks.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pmComment by StratRat — December 21, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Excellent analysis, StratRat. You nailed it.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:05 pmWould you people please try to stay On Topic.
Thanks.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That’s a good one, Charlie. really droll.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pmVictory for the Neocons will be when the USA is bankrupt and the military is broken. They are oh so close.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pmAs you all cheer for America’s enemies and root for our defeat, I’d like to take a moment and wish you all a lovely and meaningful Christmas.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:32 am
When have we all been cheering for Bush and Cheney?
December 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pmAs you all cheer for America’s enemies and root for our defeat, I’d like to take a moment and wish you all a lovely and meaningful Christmas.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Yeah, Charles. Let’s get a couple hundred more U.S. troops killed over the next few months in order to keep the bad guys from terrorizing our local grocery store or mall. I would add another hundred to that number to prevent another attack in, say, Britain or France, but as Lynn Cheney has told us, those countries aren’t important.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pmCharles, can you stay on topic? What is your definition of victory?
December 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pmCharles, can you stay on topic? What is your definition of victory?
Comment by hellinabucket — December 21, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Awww…to heck with the topic.
Hey Charles! Is it OK for one of our enemies to waterboard a U.S. troop?
December 21st, 2007 at 12:20 pmWhere’s Frank? It is not that difficult to use FoxNews.com’s archives to look for the good-news stories.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pmThis is why I laugh at the supporters of Bush and the trolls here. They can’t defend a position. They can attack, but can’t rationally discuss why they support something.
Their arguments are hollow and their spines have been removed.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pm#40: Here is a perfect example of the right-winger’s inability to recognize irony.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm37% of this country is probably baby boomer types still living in the good ol’ days of post WWII. We have lots of those people.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:36 pmBut then, the Left has always supported Americas enemies.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:29 am
This hasn’t been supported with any evidence. The republican support has been shown in earlier postings. Iran-Contra and Saddam to name two.
I’m not here to change your mind but you have shown to all here how pitiful your unfounded digital diarrhea is.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:38 pm“the most responsible†U.S. course is to pull most troops out of Iraq and begin an investigation of the WAR CRIMINALS CHENNEY, BUSH, PERLE, POWELL, WOLFOWITZ, RICE, GATES, PERTREUS, NEGROPONTE, BRAMMER, RUMSFELD AND ALL THE REST OF THE WAR CRIMINALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INVASION/OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. That would be the most responsible course the US should take if it intends to regain some of its currently inexistent international credibility. IMPEACH, INDICT, IMPRISON! HAGUE 2009!
December 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pmhellinabucket,
Success in Iraq would be leaving Iraq stable enough for the Iraqi to govern themselves and continue the trend towards consensual, constitutional government.
It would also includ riding the country of the last remnants al Qaeda and and other like-minded Islamic militant groups.
And we are succeeding at this…
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/general-barry-r-mccaffrey-report.htm
How would you define success, or as you put it; victory?
December 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm#40: Here is a perfect example of the right-winger’s inability to recognize irony.
Comment by bob lahblah
——————————————-
Please explain to me how Dr Matt’s comment is ironic.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pmFRANK M, if you like FOX in a BOX news so much, what ers you doing here amongst people that are discussing Real news??!!! I don’t undrstand???… Get a compilation of Bush’s speach and spend Christimans watching it! I wont tell you to close your eyes to the rest of the World, because if you like Bush so much, you probably don’t even have a passport…
December 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pmCharles, thanks for the reply. You state that leaving Iraq stable enough for them to self govern would be a success “Victory” as the topic of this thread is all about. The violence in Iraq is down substantially but the reasons for that are mixed. Our troops, the ethnic cleansing, Sadr calling for a ceasefire are all reasons for this. There is no evidence of the govt. in Iraq increasing their ability to self govern.
If a stable govt. is the nucleus of success, how much effort should we put into obtaining this? How much unified sacrifice should americans be willing to make in order to achieve this? then ask yourself how closely did this administration adhere to making this happen.
We can get into the rationale for going in the first place some other time. I’m interested in reading your defense of this.
My definition of success / victory starts with a mea culpa from the one’s who missinformed us. An accountablility from all who short changed the troops for the last 5 years.
Without 3 times as many troops on the ground and 5 times the amount of funding I don’t see how we can create a stable enough atmosphere to obtain “success/ victory”.
I await your reply.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:51 pmChuckie, I don’t cheer for America’s enemies. I think that Bush, Cheney, KKKarl and their ilk are America’s enemies. I wish them all the worst, maybe God or Santa can give them all a little stroke for Christmas. Not a big one, just one that lets them drool out of one side of their mouth.
I wish those around me a Merry Christmas, but just for you Chuck, I am going to rearrange the nativity scene with the donkey and Mary showing their love.
Shove your Christmas greeting up your ass.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pmComment by nanlichi,
Gee, how sweet.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pmDr. Matt,
Keep trying, eventually you’ll say something that doesn’t make you look like an enraged crackpot.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pmWasn’t meant to be sweet Chuck, sorry you took it that way.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pmSmug perhaps, but hypocritical and dishonest?…How so?
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Oh hi michael, you couldn’t help yourself could you?
December 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pmFinally, I don’t get your fixation on Fox. They’re just like any other news corp. They may be more “conservative†than the rest of the hopelessly liberal corps, but they too will follow the money and shocking news will always sell.
Comment by Frank M — December 21, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
And on the very next thread, Frank, you say nobody listens to that “pervert O’Reilly”. And he is the voice of Fox News. Take your alzheimer’s meds Jake, you’re losing it.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pmKeep trying, eventually you’ll say something that doesn’t make you look like an enraged crackpot.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Unfortunately Nappy, we can’t say the same for you, can we?
December 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pmChuckie, for your Xmas present, we have a one way ticket to Israel, lots of Coulter style perfecting needed there, waiting for your expert hand.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pmPlease explain to me how Dr Matt’s comment is ironic.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Seriously?
December 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pmWhy do you hate irony, Chuck?
Charles Napier: “But then, the Left has always supported Americas enemies.”
God, that’s just so dumb. Hey stupid, Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was indicted under the Trading with the Enemies Act for providing banking services to the Nazis during WWII.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:17 pmNo one has yet given me one reason, let alone a good reason, why withdrawal of ALL US military from Iraq is not a good idea. When the house is burning, I tend to head for the exit immediately, unless I can avoid living in a dangerous house to begin with.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 amWhy does the whole world hate America?
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 am“How would you define success, or as you put it; victory?”
Seeing you waiting tables at an Applebee’s, Charles James Napier Wentworth Pigglesmythe IV.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 amComment by Frank M — December 21, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Comment by Frank M — December 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am:
I’m amazed that, in spite of the liberal media showing nothing but bad news form Afghanistan and Iraq, support for the war on terror remains still that strong.
Frank, dear, I’m looking for the “good news” stories from the media, that’s all. But to no one’s surprise, you cannot provide ANY. No, instead you come back with some silly-ass response, “I don’t do requests.” Instead, we get the whining from people such as yourself about the horrible liberal press. I have asked many times over the past couple of years, and nobody can show me a MSM news source — “liberal” or conservative — that has archived good-news stories or has one on their front page this very second. Like Lara Logan, I’d like to know. The Baby Noor story was great; there are more, we are told.
People like you and the White House and all the war supporters whine about the liberal press and “all bad news, all the time” coming from them, but when pressed for sources of good news??
Everything goes quiet.
As to my fixation with Fox? One, they are “conservative,” remember? Not one of the members of the bad ol’ liberal press. Two, again you show your ignorance. FoxNews is the biggest supporter of this administration. Why, Fox and Friends alone has been known to b*tch about a Democratic entertainer speaking out against the war (”What does he know…he’s just an actor.“), and the very same week invite a Republican entertainer on the show to talk about…what?….yes, the war. Why do you think they went with Tony Snow as press sec., instead of someone not associated with ANY media outlet? I’m sure you are also aware that Cheney watches nothing but Fox when he travels, or did you miss that little tidbit?
Anyhow, my fixation with Fox is simply this: if any member of the MSM should be reporting on the good-news stories, it should be Fox. As I said, we have been told there are thousands of good-news stories. Fine. Where are they? If more Americans get their news from Fox, where are the stories? Instead, if you want to talk about fixation, let’s talk about Fox’s John Gibson being so fixated with Danny Bonaduce’s shirtless pictures on the Internet that he invites him on the show to talk about it. And Hume, one of the biggest cheerleaders of this administration, should be doing at a minimum one good news story per day. There are thousands of them, remember? Again, where are they?
Any fool can go to Fox and search the archives for stories about Iraq and spend a few minutes scanning a few hundred headlines going back a couple of months You won’t point out any good news stories, because you can’t. It’s much easier to whine whine whine.
December 25th, 2007 at 1:43 pm