55 percent:
By on Dec 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
55 percent:
Number of “close family members of U.S. troops” who “disapprove of President Bush’s job performance,” according to a USA Today analysis of recent polls. A December LA Times/Bloomberg poll also found that just 36 percent of active-duty military, veterans, and their families believe “it was worth going to war in Iraq,” compared to a 2004 survey that found “64 percent of service members and their families supported the war.”
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
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
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
A bit late to the party, but welcome nonetheless.
People can be fooled when they're bombarded with deceit, but eventually when they have to see the facts on the ground, they come around to the truth.
We need to do a better job of combating the deceit in the first place. The blitz pointing out the neocon-unfriendly facts in the Iran NIE is a great start.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:32 amKInd of Off topic:
More tranquility news from Iraq, via Antiwar.com:
A suicide bomber in Baiji killed 29 people and wounded 80 more at a checkpoint located next to a residential complex housing oil company workers.
In Baquba, a suicide bomber attacked a funeral for two 1920 Revolution Brigades members. According to separate sources, 10 people were killed and 21 more were wounded. Many, if not all of the victims, were members of the organization, which has joined forces with Coalition troops. Separately, gunmen blew up a police station, killing two policemen.
U.S. forces raided a home in Mosul where they killed a man and his son. Another son was arrested. The man was a former air force officer during the Saddam regime. Also, the governor of Ninewah province survived an assassination attempt; a roadside bomb wounded his driver and a bodyguard instead.
Three unidentified bodies were found dumped in Baghdad.
In Muqdadiyah, an Awakening Council member was gunned down and two others were wounded.
A dumped body was found in Ramadi.
Gunmen blew up a power station in Tikrit, leaving much of the city without power.
U.S. forces killed 13 suspects and detained 27 others in central and northern Iraq. Two gunmen were killed and four were arrested near Baquba; those arrested were captured at a Red Crescent (part of the International Red Cross) office. In Baghdad and in Diyala province, Iraqi forces killed one suspect and arrested four others. Eleven suspects were detained in Kirkuk. Also, eight suspects were arrested in Missan province.
Also, Turkey continues to conduct air raids over purported Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) locations near the Turkish border. No casualties were reported as most of the residents have already fled the area; however, Turkey is reporting that hundreds of PKK rebels were killed during an incursion that took place 10 days ago. The PKK denies the deaths.
So now, they are killing suspects...
December 26th, 2007 at 10:37 amYeah! That's like an uncertainty of 5.8%! Why, there's a chance that this majority might just be a plurality.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:38 amThe alarming part of this poll is that there are 45 percent that show some sort of approval of Bush's performance.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:39 amAnother Off Topic
The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.
The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?
December 26th, 2007 at 10:42 amThats still far too high support of our stupid ass dumbf@ck president and his privatized torture war of LIES.
Some Americans are hopeless idiots.
How do we educate them ?
Maybe Think Progress could advertize during Nascar races or on the back of Doritos bags.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:51 amSuch a small sampling, particularly “gleaned†from 4 different national polls, taken at different times with different pollsters asking different questions over a three month period, is hardly statistically relevant.
Comment by good_golly — December 26, 2007 @ 10:36 am
You think it's far-fetched to think that the families of our soldiers are weary of the Iraq occupation, so you attack the data?
You could be right, although it's reasonable to assume this figure is pretty close to reality.
Polls conducted in December 2007 by Fox, NBC, USA Today, CNN, ABC, AP and Gallup put Bush's disapproval ratings ranging from 57% to 66%.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Considering that our armed forces (and presumably their families) lean more Republican than the general population, I would expect the Bush disapproval number to be lower among them than it is for Americans in general.
It's no surprise that support for the war among this group of people has sagged considerably, just as it has for the general population -- and the families of soldiers probably regard this as an especially important issue (particularly the ones who have had to say farewell to their loved one for their third deployment).
A more statistically accurate poll could even produce higher disapproval numbers.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:53 am#8 overlap- you have a good point. Education is the key. Sometimes I am amazed while overhearing conversations how ignorant many folks are of how government works or who represents them.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:56 amMissMolly, the Republitards wouldn't believe a fact if it slapped them in the face.
Remember - they create their own reality...?
December 26th, 2007 at 10:56 amThe alarming part of this poll is that there are 45 percent that show some sort of approval of Bush’s performance.
Comment by leftcoast
Despair it's a pretty natural reaction, I think, when your beloved ones are occupying illegally a country.
They will try to justify what their beloved ones are doing overthere, because the idea of that soldier breaking international law, and guilty of a crime according to the NUremberg principles, is not an easy one to digest.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:56 am#7, right, because no matter how hard they try, no matter how many insufficiently political federal prosecutors they replace, the right still can't find any evidence of systematic voter fraud.
Meanwhile, the evidence of election fraud perpetrated by the right just piles up.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:58 amMore off topic:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29452
On Dec. 19, Putin was named Time magazine’s "Person of the Year." In an interview with the American publication, Putin asserted that the U.S. is trying to marginalize Russia in order to secure a stronger global power, saying, "This is a single-minded attempt to create a certain image of Russia which allows [Washington] to influence our internal and external policy. (...)
Russia hasn’t only said but also repeatedly demonstrated by its entire policy in the last 15 years that we do not only want to be America’s partner, but a friend as well. But sometimes I have the impression that America does not need friends. We have the impression that America needs vassals to command."
December 26th, 2007 at 10:59 amMaybe Think Progress could advertize during Nascar races or on the back of Doritos bags.
Comment by overlap — December 26, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Too bad that won't work.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:01 amIf they actually read the Doritos bag, they wouldn't ever eat them.
MissMolly, the Republitards wouldn’t believe a fact if it slapped them in the face.
Remember - they create their own reality…?
Comment by Leftside Annie — December 26, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Aha! That's why they remind me of my ex wife......
December 26th, 2007 at 11:03 am"... there are 45 percent that show some sort of approval of Bush’s performance."
Comment by leftcoast — December 26, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Naw... take into account that some of them are "undecided"...
Snark/off...
December 26th, 2007 at 11:06 amthis date is the first day of kwanzaa:
umoja or unity.
salam malakim my brothers and sisters.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:07 amMeanwhile, the evidence of election fraud perpetrated by the right just piles up.
Comment by PeterW — December 26, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Ding*Ding*Ding*Ding... we have a winner!!!
December 26th, 2007 at 11:08 amFederal government records concludes that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:12 amGood-golly raises the spectre of masses of illegal aliens voting, words intended to outrage and frighten. However, it has never been shown that any significant number of illegal aliens have ever voted. Indeed, it is illogical to assume they would. The suggestion that someone with no official status would risk impersonating a citizen by approaching a polling place on election day and attempting to cast a ballot is absurd.
What has been amply demonstrated, however, is that some demographics (chiefly the elderly and the poor) as less likely to decide to pay for an official photo id, and that a mandatory photo-id requirement lowers the participation rate of these groups. The exclusion of these group is a documented tactic used by the right to suppress voting by key Democratic demographics.
Furthermore, the requirement to have positive identification seems antithetical to a free and open society and the presumption of innocence, and is one of the key ingredients of facism. I don't want to have to carry around 'papers' which prove to the state who I am. There is time enough for me to do so if I have dealings with the law enforcement apparatus of the state. Until I do, I should be afforded the presumption of innocence and I should have the right to voluntarily disclose my identity or decline to at my own discretion.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:13 am11 percent of Americans, more than 21 millions citizens, do not have a current government-issued photo ID. Low-income, minority and elderly Americans disproportionately lack current government-issued photo ID
December 26th, 2007 at 11:14 am#22, we remember quite well what the 2002 NIE said - that various sources claimed Iraq had WMD, and that none of the intelligence agencies thought those sources were credible.
Of course, by the time it was nipped and tucked into the declassified summary, all those caveats were conveniently excised.
But you keep on telling that lie.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:16 am#25, you mean the recession that started several months into Bush's term?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:17 amYou lose Peter C.
Although you state a good case, based on facts , studies and logic, G2 uses emotion laden statements that strike fear in the lizard brain. Aliens are going to kill your children, and, they might vote!
December 26th, 2007 at 11:19 am25 - "Many of you" are freaking STUPID, too.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:20 amMany of us believe that Bush deserves a great deal of credit for the fact that there has not been another al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt
Well, 3,000 dead people is not a bad start, I guess. Maybe you should give him credit for that one too.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:21 amA bloc of voters that has traditionally supported the Republican Party appears to be up for grabs.
The military is heavily disenfranchised with the republican party.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:22 amMany of us believe that Bush deserves a great deal of credit for the fact that there has not been another al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt
###
How many Al Qaeda attacks were there on US soil under Clinton? Do you really believe that keeping troops in Iraq forever will keep Saudis from flying planes into our buildings?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:24 amIn addition, all the major intelligence agencies in the world concluded that Saddam had WMD.
Comment by Manslagt
Yeah, right... that's why the whole world was so eager to engage an illegal action, breaking the UN Charter.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:24 amall the major intelligence agencies in the world concluded that Saddam had WMD.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:23 am
####
But he didn't, and we've known that for four years, so can we leave now?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:25 amI know nanlichi,
Although, sooner or later, those people who have been repeatedly duped learn a portion of the truth and feel betrayed. I'm hoping this feeling of betrayal will be potent enough to deter them from ever chosing their betrayers again. This is why I push so strongly for impeachment. The Republicans has so callously violated the trust of the American people. The public needs to see that there is an alternative.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:25 amBut he didn’t, and we’ve known that for four years, so can we leave now?
Comment by Chris L
Now, watch Manslagt switch to "Freedom to Iraqis" and "fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq" excuses...
December 26th, 2007 at 11:27 amName one major intelligence agency in the world that said in 2002 that Saddam did not have WMD.
The IAEA, who were the ones actually on the ground inspecting.
Not surprisingly they were right.
And, wow, they say the same thing about Iran.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:27 amFunny thing about war/occupations.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:28 amAs time drags on, more soldiers killed, maimed and mentally hosed up, people see the utter uselessness and purposelessness of it.
#35, right, sure - that brlliant spurt of economic growth Bush has given us where the job growth doesn't keep up with the growth of the workforce, we double the debt Reagan ran up, and where median household income slips.
I don't excuse Clinton's corporatist policies - NAFTA, lax regulation of the financial sector, and so forth. But as dangerous as Clinton's Republican-light policies were, the stagnation and debt Bush has given us is infinitely more dangerous.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:30 amMany of us believe that Bush deserves a great deal of credit for the fact that there has not been another al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt
----------------------------------------------
And we have not been attacked by aliens from outer space in the whole term of his pResidency either. So to recap, even after being warned of the 9/11 attack, dipshit presides over the worst attack on American soil, but no visit from the Death Star, and only that one attack on 9/11 and you want to give the Chimpfck credit?
The desire to worship is strong in these trolls. We don't need another hero, but the weak-hearted sycophants sure do.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:31 amIf they actually read the Doritos bag, they wouldn’t ever eat them. Comment by Wayne — December 26, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Pictures, pretty pictures...
December 26th, 2007 at 11:31 amName one major intelligence agency in the world that said in 2002 that Saddam did not have WMD.
Comment by Manslagt
When the vast majority of agencies worldwide, receive a lot of support, info and material from US agencies, they can hardly say otherwise.
What is very telling here, is that when Spain, who hasn't a very developed intelligence agency, AFFIRMS that Saddam is danger to the world, when even IRAN (almost a natural enemy) wants some form of Iraq integration to the Middle East, something is fishy...
But you are not very sharp, I guess. You just follow orders.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:31 am#32 Falsehood? What did the 2002 NIE say about Curveball? What did the declassified summary say?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:31 amSeems to me that the IAEA was pretty clear that Iraq no longer had WMD. They had been running around the country dismantling everything for years. Scott Ritter was pretty clear too. Of course, Bush and Cheney were sure that they'd been decieved by Saddam, and they said they knew where the WMD were - "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."
December 26th, 2007 at 11:32 amComment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:28 am
####
What were the other two? And don't include embassies, because they have been attacked since Bush - also don't include attacks on military targets because by definition "terrorism" is attacks on civilians. Also, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, even Bush has said that. If Iraq had been linked to 9/11 we would have invaded in 2001, not 2003.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:32 amChris L.:
“The military is heavily disenfranchised with the republican party.â€
Such a statement could only be made by someone who has never served a day in uniform and knows no one who serves.
If you moonbats nominate Hillary, Obama or the Breck Girl, you’ll see the military vote for the GOP candidate in greater numbers than they did in 2004.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:31 am
########
I spent 8 years in uniform. I spent a year and a half of that in Iraq. I am a veteran of Operations Desert Spring (Kuwait 2000), Noble Eagle, OIF, and OEF. Note to you: The ONLY OIF veteran serving in congress is a democrat. The ONLY OIF veteran running for Senate is running as a democrat.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:34 amSpeaking of other intelligence agencies, while our latest Iran NIE states with high confidence that they abandoned their nuclear weapons program in 2003, China and Russia's intelligence services claim they never had one.
Our claim that they had one before 2003 seems to be based on info on a laptop that came a little fortuitously into our hands through the assistance of (surprise!) an Iranian exile group. Now why is that familiar?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:35 amsince it was Clinton’s policies visi-a-vis Iraq that ultimately led to 9/11,...
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:28 am
WTF? Are you nucking Futz?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:35 amIf you moonbats nominate Hillary, Obama or the Breck Girl, you’ll see the military vote for the GOP candidate in greater numbers than they did in 2004.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Promise me one thing slag, you'll be around the week after the election in Nov 08... Promise, now...
December 26th, 2007 at 11:36 amSo now, they are killing suspects…
Comment by Juan C.
Not they my friend, we. Whether we are for or against the war, what our troops do in Iraq and Afghanistan is done in all our names.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:37 am#51, partially correct - UNSCOM was also on the ground in Iraq, and they were also saying there were no weapons.
The intelligence agencies cited numerous sources in the NIE, and then discussed their credibility. In all cases, the credibility of important sources of info on Iraq were deemed by numerous agencies to be dubious. Why were those caveats and doubts excised from the public discussion?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:37 amI would also include 9/11 as part of the Clinton legacy since it was Clinton’s policies visi-a-vis Iraq that ultimately led to 9/11, the planning for 9/11 was conducted on Clinton’s watch, and the 9/11 pilots entered this country while Clinton was still president.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Yeah.... riiiiight....
Nice try. Richard Clarke gave Herr Brusch 50 PLUS warnings before 9/11 that something was up, including one named strangely enough, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside US", which Condi dismissed after the fact as an "historical document".
Yer definitely an historical revisionist. I suggest less alcohol early in the day. BTW, seeing as yer so educated and articulate (advertize), what's a "moonbat"? Give me a clear, exact, MEANINGFUL definition, if you can... waiting... waiting...
December 26th, 2007 at 11:38 amManslgt,
If you really don't believe that the military is starting to get disenfranchised with the republican party, click on my name. The entire website is made up of veterans, like myself, and other soldiers still serving in Iraq.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:38 amFirst, the IAEA is not an intelligence agency, moonbat. Second, the IAEA deals with nuclear issues, and made no judgment concerning Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons.
Comment by Manslagt
Funny, I thought one of the greatest fears was Saddam's nukes...or as Mrs. Rice put it: We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. (not quote)
Perhaps Mrs. Rice forgot the IAEA finding. But I guess Manslat didn't care too much about this fatal error from Mrs. Rice.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:38 amComment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:39 am
####
"Embassies are considered U.S. soil"
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2007
December 26th, 2007 at 11:41 amJan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
This troll is boring.
We have been through all of this. What a bunch of losers.
Later.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:42 am2007 - Deadliest year so far in Iraq.
More of our troops have died this year than any year of the war so far.
Veterans understand this, as do their families. Rick Noriega (OEF veteran) and Andrew Horne (OIF veteran) are both running for Senate. Hopefully, they will be able to bring about a change.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:43 amJuan C.:
“Yeah, right… that’s why the whole world was so eager to engage an illegal action, breaking the UN Charter.â€
Name one major intelligence agency in the world that said in 2002 that Saddam did not have WMD.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:26 am
---------------------------------
The IAEA said they didn't have it. Our own intelligence said they probably didn't have it.
-The yellow cake was BS per Joe Wilson.
-The aluminum tubes were the wrong size for uranium enrichment
-The mobile weapons labs were laughed out of the UN
Baiscally there was no credible evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons. It's nigh impossible to prove a negative though.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am#64, indeed. He's entitled to his opinions, but not to his own reality.
I wonder how much the RNC pays these people to waste our time.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:45 amAnyone can claim anything they want here.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:44 am
####
Yes, they can. You are right there. So, I don't know what I could offer as proof. I am a member of the American Legion, the VFW, and I am the Utah state representative for VoteVets.org.
"pointing to one person serving in the House does not prove a thing"
You're right there too. However, as you'll notice if you click on my name, he will soon be joined by two other veterans in the Senate.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:48 amPrre 911 : Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
December 26th, 2007 at 11:48 amI guess you moonbats aren’t sharp enough to remember that the operation to remove Saddam from power was called Operation Iraqi FREEDOM. It’s hilarious how you moonbats mindlessly parrot the “shifting rationales†argument.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:48 am
####
We removed him. They are free now - they have elected their own government and written their own constitution - can we bring them home now?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:50 am#71 - you know, when you want to fight entity X, it seems to hardly to make any sense to attack entity Y, and get caught in a quagmire where you're blowing through blood and treasure, and only fighting X 5% of the time.
Here's a crazy thought - fight Al Queda where they were, rather than create conditions for them to open branch offices, all the while fighting mostly people that aren't Al Queda.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:51 amI guess you moonbats aren’t sharp enough to remember that the operation to remove Saddam from power was called Operation Iraqi FREEDOM.
Funny how the Iraqis - in poll after poll - don't feel freer.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:52 amOperation Iraqi Freedom was originally called Operation Iraqi Liberation. Had to change that for obvious regions.
No Child Left Behind does.
Clear Skies Act isn't
Patriot Act isn't either.
Naming something a catchy phrase does not equate into the actions done under them.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am#70 German intelligence also concluded that the source for that claim, Curveball, was a self-aggrandizing loon.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:53 amComment by good_golly — December 26, 2007 @ 11:47 am
which postings are those? you must support your arguments with facts gg. go see "the great debaters". no matter you are (yes even if you are retired or out of work) it's never to late to learn.
and a happy kwanzaa to you.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:53 amWhy was it needed to provide Iraqis freedom and not the Sudaneese, North Koreans, Cubans, or any other nation? Why was it so important to go into Iraq? And why was it so botched up?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:53 amAll Bush's lies are etched in stone gospel truth to these neocon shills. You trolls sure have quite the lipstick collection, the pigs are pretty.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:55 amComment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:48 am
manny, there's just one thing you have to learn: "huck" huckabee is a jesus man. point to any other candidate in this election and you cannot make the same statement. got it?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:56 amIf you moonbats nominate Hillary, Obama or the Breck Girl, you’ll see the military vote for the GOP candidate in greater numbers than they did in 2004.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:31 am
And if they vote for rghtwing NUTJOBS like Rudy or Fred or Fkuclebee, and end up being sent to MORE ILLEGAL WARS by these TRAITORS
like MURDERER Bush,
I will have NO SYMPATHY if they meet their demise after supporting these Chichenhawk TRAITORS Bush, Rudy, etc.
RIP
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 26th, 2007 at 11:58 amEver-Changing Reasons for War:
When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.
After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to spread democracy through the Middle East.
Then it was confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America safer,"
"It's a struggle between good and evil."
"The hopes of the civilized world ride with us,"
December 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pmClarke is not exactly a credible person.
Comment by Manslagt
December 26th, 2007 at 12:01 pmAnd Bush is?
leftcoast:
“No, no, no. We don’t have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy?â€
Richard Clarke claims Wolfowitz said this. As we all know, Clarke has made similar claims that have been proven false. Clarke is not exactly a credible person.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
"As we ALL know..."????
REALLY??
Give us ONE example of something Clarke said that was proven "false".
Clarke is a Republican HAWK, and a PATRIOT, not a scum-sucker Saudi-dikc-sucker OIL WHOREBAG like MURDERER Bush.
Tell us ONE thing Clarke said that was proven "wrong".
If not, you have NO MORE CREDIBILITY here AT ALL.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 26th, 2007 at 12:03 pmSo you moonbats have gone from saying U.S. embassies are not U.S. soil to saying hotels in other countries are? Where do people get the idea that liberals cant offer cogent arguments?
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
well you are here, aren't you?
manny?
December 26th, 2007 at 12:06 pmStill NO evidence that al Qaeda had any connection, influence with or any ties to Sadaam.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pmGive it up, trolls, there was NO reason to invade Iraq based on ANYTHING to do with 9/11.
Tiume us when our troops came home from Germany.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
###
Funny you should mention this. When I went over in 2003, we were told it would be a few short months, just like Desert Storm. We weren't going to have another long drawn out open-ended commitment like Clinton did in Bosnia. We were told not to post American flags on our camps, because this was not an "occupation". When Bush claimed "Mission Accomplished" in May of 2003, my Bn CDR, Lt Col. Burton, called a formation and said we would be going home soon. Almost a year later, Saddam was captured, and we really thought the end had come. We had been seeing for some time how open-ended commitments like Bosnia, Kosovo, had heavily overstretched our military. After our 2nd extension, even the CSM said he wouldn't re-enlist. Now most on the right-wing are saying we should stay there forever, just like Germany. Just keep singing that tune.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm"We also played a role in removing Hitler from power. German has elected their own government and has their own constitution. Tiume us when our troops came home from Germany."
We didn't have to fight an insurgency in Germany after May of 1945, either. That's what a good post-war plan gets you.
Also, there was that little issue of the Soviet Union threatening Western Europe.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWe didn’t have to fight an insurgency in Germany after May of 1945, either. That’s what a good post-war plan gets you.
Also, there was that little issue of the Soviet Union threatening Western Europe.
Comment by RickS — December 26, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
excellent argument rick.
manny, your thoughts?
December 26th, 2007 at 12:11 pmThe strange thing is that if Bush could run for President again, he would probably win. Only in America, sigh.......
December 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pmThe strange thing is that if Bush could run for President again, he would probably win. Only in America, sigh…….
Comment by delafield — December 26, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
against "huck" huckabee?
are you on acid?
December 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pmMany of us believe that Bush deserves a great deal of credit for the fact that there has not been another al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:17 am
So who gets the credit for there not being any Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil for the years BEFORE 9/11?
December 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pmThe strange thing is that if Bush could run for President again, he would probably win. Only in America, sigh…….
Comment by delafield — December 26, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
I doubt it -- rigging an election will only work if it's a close one.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pmIt should also be noted that the strike on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in August 1998 was done because the Clinton administration believe Iraq and al Qaeda were working together on VX production there. During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Clarke and four other administration officials still asserted that the’r conclusion regarding al Shifa was correct.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
having what do with what, manny? you're grasping at straws and turning those who support you away from your argument. try harder damn it or throw in the towel.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:18 pmLittle George, tired of being a failure at everything he had ever tried, wanted to be remembered as a War President. He said that that was his desire before he was handed the Presidency, long before 9/11. Iraq is His War, for his ego.
There was no and is no justification for Bush's War. Just ask Pat Tillman. Wait, you can't? And his murder is covered by little George's right to privacy?
The enemy of the USA resides in the White House for another year, then we kick his sordid, stinking ass out. Along with all his Born Again brownshirts.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:19 pm#105, when did we blackmail the German executive to prevent their parliament from kicking them out?
The Iraqi parliament has tried on numerous occasions to vote to kick us out, but despite the fact that this is the sentiment of both the ruling coalition MPs and the opposition, the PM and his allies keep blocking the vote.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pmindictment against bin Laden in 1998
Very interesting that the indictment, in the Background section, alludes to:
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
But in the section of the indictment under OVERT ACTS.
Not one word about Iraq. Nothing. Pretty weak evidence, and did Bush, even once, mention this indictment in the buildup to war...?
December 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pmI've always had issues with the belief that "every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had WMDs".
It was a while ago, and I can't remember where I read it (Maybe at Global Security, but I can't find the article), but I believe that the situation in 2001-02 wasn't that all the intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had WMDs, but that there wasn't enough evidence to show whether or not he did have them.
Most of the information coming out of Iraq in the late 1990s was sparse to non-existent, and what information did come out was from sources of rather questionable reliability.
So it wasn't necessarily that the consensus was that Iraq had WMDs, it was that no one really knew what Saddam had and didn't have.
But given that Saddam did have WMDs at one time, and that the inspectors were no longer in Iraq after 1998, the intel agencies worldwide seemed to SWAG it (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), and go with the opinion that Saddam did have them.
Like I said, I can't remember where I read this version, so I'm afraid I can't site my source.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pmIf you moonbats nominate Hillary, Obama or the Breck Girl, you’ll see the military vote for the GOP candidate in greater numbers than they did in 2004.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Only if our military personnel love fighting in Iraq and don't want to go home. Every GOP candidate wants to keep them over there with the exception of Ron Paul. Yet I have not heard any GOP candidate include in their stump speech anything about the need to provide a better deal for the armed forces -- you know, decent pay, decent equipment, more time between deployments, more compensation for their dependents if they get killed in action, etc.
If I was a GOP candidate, I wouldn't take the military vote for granted these days.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:25 pmI’ll be back later. I have to go work so you moonbats can collect your checks from the government.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
manny a quote from dick cheney:
winners never quit and quitters never win.
think about that while you're at "work".
December 26th, 2007 at 12:28 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
a good case for withdrawing.
(i thought you were a neo-con.)
December 26th, 2007 at 12:35 pmmissmolly:
“So who gets the credit for there not being any Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil for the years BEFORE 9/11?â€
No one since there were al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil prior to 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
I was speaking of the years between the WTC bombing in 1993 and 9/11. And by "U.S. soil" I was interpreting that as the patch of dirt where we live -- the 50 states. I suppose an argument could be made that the U.S. embassies bombed in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole could be interpreted as "U.S. soil" -- depending on which straws you wanted to clutch for your argument.
My point was that there is really no evidence that Bush's actions since 9/11 are singly responsible for the lack of Al Qaeda attacks since 9/11. It's possible that there have been no Al Qaeda attacks because of Bush. It's also possible (and more probable) that there have been no Al Qaeda attacks IN SPITE OF Bush p!ssing off the rest of the world.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:35 pmWhat is painfully obvious is that there are many, many thousands more pissed off, radicalized muslims than before 9/11.
Thanks for that, Bush.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:39 pmAh. The next troll shift has arrived.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pmthe consequences of leaving the Iraqis with an unstable environment
That argument could be used for a decades long involvement.
Define stable.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:55 pmHow convenient, eh, manny?
December 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pmAccording to the troll, us moonbats are supposed to be getting government checks. Does anyone know where I sign up for that, because this going to work day after day, year after year, even working two jobs at times, that sh!t's getting old. I was thinking I wouldn't get anything until I reached SS age, but he seems to know pretty much everything.
So where do I sign up?
December 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pm#119: Shifts? You still think that GOP is actually paying people to post on this little site? Man, talk about self-aggrandizing…
Comment by Frank M — December 26, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
You trolls do seem to spell one another, although sometimes it seems more likely you're just changing sock puppets.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pmDoes anyone know where I sign up for that, because this going to work day after day, year after year, even working two jobs at times, that sh!t’s getting old. I was thinking I wouldn’t get anything until I reached SS age, but he seems to know pretty much everything.
So where do I sign up?
Comment by gummitch — December 26, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Tell me about it. I'm working 3 job these days. I've thought about becoming a registered GOOPer so I could get my "fair" share of all that silly money BruschCo's been throwing around the last few years, but I... just... couldn't... do it.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:01 pmYou mean you show up all day, every day to defend your Dear Leader FOR FREE???
Gad. Yer stupider than I thought, Frankie.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pm99% are against the war IF....they had to go RIGHT NOW, and get killed.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
then we're late withdrawing (or drawing down)...
The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.
june 20, 2005
December 26th, 2007 at 1:04 pmComment by Leftside Annie — December 26, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
frankie's a fascist, remember?
chuck's the neo-con.
let's not get them confused.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:05 pmMan, talk about self-aggrandizing…
Comment by Frank M — December 26, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Ironies abound...
I caught trolls working off of scripts earlier in the year. Two of them made the identical remark weeks apart: "The Dems are playing w/ you the way we play w/ our religious nuts".
An almost EXACT quote (I have an unusually memory for words...)and the two different postings were IDENTICAL. What are the odds of 2 different trolls posting the same wording, approximately 6 weeks apart? I don't recall who the 1st troll was, but the 2nd poster was our beloved Jake D, long gone...
December 26th, 2007 at 1:06 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
but chuck karen hughes fixed all that, didn't she?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:06 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 26, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
catch of the day!
trolls just hate to be exposed.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:07 pmComment by good_golly — December 26, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
you're right... as long as you remember to put them between quote marks (" ") and reference your source material.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:13 pmMaybe you’re right. But do you remember after 9/11, when they televised the many thousands of people rejoicing in the streets of different parts of the middle east that America had been attacked.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
You can find this info online at many different websites...
Which Middle East country held spontaneous candlelight vigils for victims of the World Trade Center Attack on 9/11?
Kuwait - No.
Saudi Arabia - No.
Israel - No.
Iran - Yes.
Hey, let's attack the ONE country in the region that DIDN'T celebrate American deaths! Snark/off...
December 26th, 2007 at 1:16 pm131 - Joe - gee, it's sorta like Dungeons and Dragons, eh? They all get their assigned roles to play! What fun for them!
December 26th, 2007 at 1:16 pmShould thought about that before you republican. But welcome anyways.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:16 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
bad 'tude dude. ignore dick at your peril chuck.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:16 pmWhy is that trolls think evoking Pelosi and Reid is effective on a progressive blog? Are they really that stupid?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pm137 - "We elected"...? You mean you voted for Democrats, Manny?
Oh dear. They're going to take away your Freeper card.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pmcaptain, the republicans that have taken a shining to blocking every democratic agenda is as much to blame if not more.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pm131 - Joe - gee, it’s sorta like Dungeons and Dragons, eh? They all get their assigned roles to play! What fun for them!
Comment by Leftside Annie — December 26, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
did you read what chuck wrote about dick? sometimes even they forget who they are. and the cool part is that they win more converts to our point of view than we do!
trolls, ya gotta love 'em!
December 26th, 2007 at 1:20 pmIt certainly doesn’t mean that the quoter is the same person as the quoted.
Comment by good_golly — December 26, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Is this supposed to be an "explanation" of the above-noted phenomena?
If so, it's ridiculous.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... yer a comic, right?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pmHere is a major lie that Clarke shared: “There’s absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever.â€
TRAITOR Bush ALSO said that. Do you think HE lied about it also?
So, where is the PROOF that Iraq supported Al Queda?
You have give NONE, so you have NO CREDIBILITY.
Clarke was ALSO in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations, because he IS a Republican and a HAWK.
So, again, what PROOF do you have that Clarke lied about ANYTHING?
None.
No CREDIBILITY for YOU, CredibilityNazi!!!
(Come back ONE YEAR!!)
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 26th, 2007 at 1:27 pmHow stable was Vietnam when we pulled out?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:28 pmHow stable was Vietnam when we pulled out?
Comment by hellinabucket — December 26, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
gotcha chuck.
131 - Joe - gee, it’s sorta like Dungeons and Dragons, eh? They all get their assigned roles to play! What fun for them!
Comment by Leftside Annie — December 26, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
btw, gg is a guy annie. he said so in the next post about juan cole.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pmFingerpointing to the past isn’t very productive, regardless of who’s doing it.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
gonna hold you to that one chuck!
December 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pmCapt'n, 2008 votes are already being tallied? I live in Chicago and that beats our system. Wow.
An election doesn't mean we now go to sleep and let whomever won to just do as they please.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pmFingerpointing to the past isn’t very productive, regardless of who’s doing it.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Gee, manny, can I quote you on that the next time you blame Bill Clinton for something that Bush is responsible for...?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:39 pmThe reasons that we went to war: Saddam was a despot, terrorizing his own people, the threat of his WMD and alledged ties to terror groups,
Then why, oh why, Cap'n haven't we attacked N. Korea?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pmBut do you remember after 9/11, when they televised the many thousands of people rejoicing in the streets of different parts of the middle east that America had been attacked. The towers brought down and Americans killed?
Yes, please refer to the last sixty years of unbridled American support of Israel. And Bush's devotion to the Saudi ruling family.
That would do nicely.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:43 pmwould ensure a stable, self-sustaining Iraqi government.
You mean like the one under Sadaam>?
There's not going to be any reconciliation between these religious rivals without a 'strong man'. And to allow a Shiite to become that strong man would ally Iraq with Iran very tightly.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pmSo where are you gonna get a Kurdish or Sunni strongman when you really need one...
So what effect will the future Turkish Security Zone in northern Kurdistan have on stability in Iraq?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmCapt'n, any of this happened to Iraq if we didn't invade? Look at Vietnam now. The world will shift and turn without our direct involvement.
Have you ever heard the term you go to war with a country not just with an army?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmIf we're waiting for Iraq to be stable before we pull out, then this indeed will be called the Long War.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:58 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
As long as you're quoting from wikipedia, you might as well include the text immediately following the section you posted. It reads:
"The dire predictions of a generation did not come to fruition. Since Thailand and other South East Asian nations did not fall to systematic Vietnamese aggression, the Domino Theory, so widely trumpeted, was said to have been an illusion. Vietnam, without the presence of the United States, showed itself to be of little economic or strategic value to anyone."
December 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pmSo the US should have stayed in Southeast Asia during the 1970s?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:00 pmYou forgot the part about liberty, pursuit of happiness, and unalienable rights.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
You mean like they have in Saudi Arabia....?
Oh, I see.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:02 pmMaybe you’re right. But do you remember after 9/11, when they televised the many thousands of people rejoicing in the streets of different parts of the middle east that America had been attacked.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 26, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
I don't remember that. I remember seeing some footage of middle easterners dancing and celebrating, and hearing the voiceover on the news indicate this celebration was in reaction to the 9/11 attacks. After the predictable reaction of outrage from the American people, a little research was done on this footage and it turned out to be stock footage of Palestinians celebrating a festival that not only had anything to do with 9/11, it had nothing to do with any kind of terrorist attacks. Turned out to be an "oops!" by the media.
As far as the "many thousands of people rejoicing in the streets of different parts of the middle east" -- that's a myth. There were probably a few extremists who rejoiced, but that wasn't the mainstream mood of the world. The 9/11 attacks were soundly condemned from everywhere in the world, including countries in the middle east.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:08 pmAs long as you’re quoting from wikipedia, you might as well include the text immediately following the section you posted. It reads:
“The dire predictions of a generation did not come to fruition. Since Thailand and other South East Asian nations did not fall to systematic Vietnamese aggression, the Domino Theory, so widely trumpeted, was said to have been an illusion. Vietnam, without the presence of the United States, showed itself to be of little economic or strategic value to anyone.â€
Comment by missmolly — December 26, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
The captain bolted just in time, so I wouldn't expect a response to that one.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:12 pmWhat about the 'Domino' theory that if VietNam were to fall to the commies, then so would all of southeast asia, coming under Chinese Communist control?
Hmm.. didn't happen.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pmMoonbat, Seoul is within artillery range of North Korea.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
But, but, but , Saudi Arabia was within rocket range of Baghdad!
December 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pmComment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
manny i thought you were going to work. did you get fired?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:36 pmBesides, did Iraq fire artillery at Saudi cities in 2003?
Hell, thanks to the St. Petersburg Times and a commercial satellite photography firm, we know Iraq didn't even mass troops on the Saudi border in 1990-1991.
Oh, wait, that was the other Bush's lies meant to get us into the other Iraq war.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:39 pmNorth Korea isn't a threat?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pmComment by RickS — December 26, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Not to me or my neighborhood. Is it to you and yours?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:01 pmAccording to the moonbats, North Korea is not a threat today. When Clinton was president, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran posed the greatest threat to the United States. However, after Bush became president, for some reason those countries ceased being threats.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Everything's a threat to you neocon chicken littles though isn't it?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pmI hear Cuba is up to no good!
December 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pm"When Clinton was president, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran posed the greatest threat to the United States."
What, no bin Laden?
And how were they a threat to the US during the 1990s?
North Korea didn't have nuclear capability. Neither did Iran. And Saddam had US, British, and French combat air patrols, as well as UAVs, flying over Iraq.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:18 pmLet me remind you of your comment on post #115
The reasons that we went to war: Saddam was a despot, terrorizing his own people, the threat of his WMD and alledged ties to terror groups, fear of future attacks after 9/11,
based on these criteria, we should have attacked N. Korea.
They are ruled by a despot.
They HAVE a nukular arsenal.
They are just years away from having the strike potential to waste much of the Western states.
So why not attack them?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pmBut wait...one of our trolls says that all the people he knows who have been to Iraq think it was worth it. What happened?
Truthfully, it has been this way for a while. What is different now as opposed to last year and the year before is that the people in the military now feel empowered to speak out about their opinions.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:36 pmThe alarming part of this poll is that there are 45 percent that show some sort of approval of Bush’s performance.
Comment by leftcoast
All that means is that there are still a lot of military families who have to convince themselves that there is a reason for their family member to be in harms way other than to try to steal Iraq's oil. If they didn't convince themselves that their child was fighting for a noble cause, they would probably go crazy. And that is especially true for those family members who have lose someone to this fiasco. They can't admit that their child died for Bush's ego and to enrich American oil companies.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pmIf we END the war, all thoes WAR POWERS ACT percs will go out the window.....get it? War/money mongers want a war at all times.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pmMoonbat, Seoul’s population is greater than 10 million. There is not a single place within Saudi Arabia that has a population density as great as that.
Comment by Manslagt
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Keep it up, amusement troll.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pmMy, the trolls are out in force today. I have given up on reading this thread since it is nothing but troll droppings and people playing whack a troll.
What are the Republiscums so afraid of that they have to send their trolls out in such massive quantities?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:50 pmRight, there were no Iraqi troops in Kuwait, either.
Comment by Manslagt
With the approval of Bush I, everything can be done.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:52 pmMemo to Manslagt: Nobody cares praises so much Clinton so as to deny his wrongdoings...as in comparison of Bush followers, who never ever practice self-criticism.
And no, I'm not Juan Cole.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pmDuh, nobody here praises ... etc.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pmOh, dear, manny-poo, tsk, tsk! We aren't supposed to be doing any fingerpointing to the past....
That means no more "Clinton did it" or "it's all Clinton's fault"!
You said so yourself, dear boy.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:10 pmSpeaking of polls...
Read an article in our local paper yesterday about TN Rep. David Davis touting a poll showing him with an approval rating of 70% based polling of voters in his district.
Now, the catch: the polling was done by a Republican polling firm, Public Opinion Strategies (POS for short...very fitting IMO) calling on Republican voters asking their opinion on the job performance of a Republican representative. Never mind that there are Democrats mixed in with his constituents. Can you say "biased"?
Anyway...does anyone know of any polls taken regarding individual House members that polls ALL voters in a district?
December 26th, 2007 at 6:18 pm"Then why did the Clinton administration consider Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to be the greatest threats to U.S. security. Secretary of Defense William Cohen said this in July 2000. You can read his testimony here:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000725wc.pdf
"Cohen’s testimony exposes the lie Clinton Inc. now tells about al Qaeda being the greatest threat."
-Comment by Manslagt
Where does it say in this statement that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were at that time the greatest threats to US security?
I see it mention the POTENTIAL threat that these three nations could turn into (by 2015), but I don't see where they are, at the time of the hearing, that they were the most dangerous opponents we faced.
My question was: How were those three nations immediate threats to the United States during the 1990s?
But you are right. Apparently, Cohen neglected to mention the threat that bin Laden's ICBM program posed to the United States and our allies.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:28 pm#180, Right, there were no Iraqi troops in Kuwait, either.
Never said any such thing. But GW1 was predicated upon a "massive buildup" of Iraqi forces on the Saudi border, which we were led to believe implied a second invasion. Satellite photography commissioned by a major mainstream paper proved otherwise, and proved Daddy Bush was just as happy to lie to get us into a war as his son would (the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter's fabricated tear-jerking tale of babies removed from incubators to die on the floor was another).
The Iraq-Kuwait confict was a local conflict with local roots. The Kuwaitis were split off Iraq by a colonial decision, they were stealing Iraq's oil via slant-drilling, and when Iraq requested US permission to settle the matter with force, the US Ambassador (rightly or wrongly) acquiesced.
Had Kuwait been the end of it, the world would have angrily stamped its feet, but there would have been no call for force to eject Iraq.
However, the specter of numerous imaginary Iraqi divisions massing to conquer Saudi Arabia too, well that was enough to trigger a coalition for war. And so Bush claimed divisions were there when a little investigative journalism proved they weren't.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:46 pmRegardless of how this war ends it will have been a profound waste of resources for the already overextended USA , and especially because of the lives lost and the many grievously wounded. There will not ever be a satisfactory conclusion to this war where one can honestly say "it was all worth it".
Be advised that there will be a coterie of neocons who will attempt to revise history and claim to make the outcome positive, if only to whitewash their pathetic ignorance and incompetence, and to minimize the potential for public backlash.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:05 pmComment by Manslagt — December 27, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Still no "greatest threat" declaration by Cohen. It seems you are putting words into Cohen's mouth.
It's also strange that in regards to Iraq, within one year of Cohen's remarks, Powell and Rice stated just the opposite. Specifically, that Iraq was not a threat to it's neighbors nor to the U.S., their military was weak, they did not have the capacity to restart any WMD programs, and the sanctions against them were working. Summing it all up, Iraq had been, as Powell put it, "contained."
You can read more here.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:30 amSince we began that fight there have been no Al-Qaeda attacks in the U.S. That’s enough of a connection for me.
Comment by good_golly — December 26, 2007 @ 11:47 am
And your point is...?
We also had no attacks in the U.S. from al Qaeda in the 7 years after the first WTC bombing. And this was during a time when the U.S. didn't engage in a multi-year "war" on terror in another region in the world.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:02 pmComment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:23 am
The intelligence, as you have earlier pointed out, was an "estimate."
As we now know, the intelligence was wrong.
As well, a former CIA agent out of Europe, Tyler Drumheller, warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin AND Tenet that the info gleaned from Curveball regarding the mobile weapons labs was likely fabricated. He tried to get the info stricken from Powell's speech to the U.N., yet it remained even after Tenet told Drumheller to "not worry about that." Drumheller goes on to say:
The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they [the White House] were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.
So don't sit there and tell us that nobody in the intelligence agencies said "wait a minute." Members of the German intelligence agency BND and the CIA both were questioning the intelligence.
Please...read more here.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pmI would also include 9/11 as part of the Clinton legacy since it was Clinton’s policies visi-a-vis Iraq that ultimately led to 9/11, the planning for 9/11 was conducted on Clinton’s watch, and the 9/11 pilots entered this country while Clinton was still president.
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:28 am
I think a historical comparison is called for.
Educate us on which Regan and Bush I policies led to the WTC attack in 1993, since the planning for the attack was conducted during their administrations, and the attackers entered the country during the same time.
Also, I'd like to know which Republicans were placing the blame on Bush I, since he was Clinton's predecessor.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pmComment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Thus, if we'd dropped those silly little sanctions, we'd have dodged the 9/11 attack?
Silly us.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pmIt seems that liberals are extremely poor readers.
Comment by Manslagt — December 27, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Hey, you pasted Cohen's words, not me. Show me where he specifically used the words "greatest threat."
December 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pmIn his 1997 interview with CNN, bin Laden said he would send Clinton “messages with no words’ in response to those deaths.
Comment by Manslagt — December 27, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Bin Laden also said that he'd bankrupt the U.S. and Bush is driving us right towards it. How are we going to pay for it? With more tax cuts? You and Bush are full of shit. Where is Bush getting the money to pay for this "war"? It sure as hell isn't from the American people. Oh wait...he doesn't give a damn about how or if it will be paid for, because he will be out of office in a little over a year and it will be someone else's mess to clean up. Bush will have been in the grave for many years before...IF...it is ever paid for.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:22 pmNot true. Americans were attacked numerous times between the first WTC bombing and 9/11. Two U.S. embassies (i.e., U.S. soil) were bombed in 1998, killing scores and injuring 5,000. A U.S. warship was also bombed.
Comment by Manslagt — December 27, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Embassies overseas are not "in" the U.S., dumbass. I am talking about within the borders of the United States of America, the same borders that supporters of this administration and this war reference when they love to brag about no attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 and give all the credit to Bush.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pmSo you believe the Clinton administration lied when it said Saddam had WMD, was a threat to the U.S., and had ties to al Qaeda?
Comment by Manslagt — December 27, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Are you referring to statements Clinton made while in office, or after?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pm"If the Clinton administration truly believed al Qaeda was the biggest threat, why didn’t Cohen say, “I cannot think of a more important issue to address than protecting the American people from the threat posed by al Qaeda�"
Comment by Manslagt
Well, let's see, you posted a statements from a hearing about the POTENTIAL threat of ICBMs (that means Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, in case you were wondering) from Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
It was a hearing to justify the building of a NMD system, based on the ASSUMPTION that those three nations would develop missiles that could hit the United States.
As far as I can determine, bin Laden does not have an active ICBM program, and didn't have one in 2000. So chances are that is the reason why he was not included in a statement that tried to justify a NMD system.
If I was SecDef, and had to addres the SASC on the justification of deploying F-22s, I'm not going to talk about the threat of al Qaeda. I'm going to talk about the threats that the F-22 would be used against. Terrorism would not be one of those threats, so chances are I'm going to leave that threat out of my speech.
If I did include terrorism in my statement, it would sound like I was trying to find any excuse to justify the deployment of a 100 million dollar a copy fighter plane.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:00 pmComment by RickS — December 27, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
BAM!
December 28th, 2007 at 12:03 amBad Eye,
Thanks. You can never get too carried away with these things.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:22 am"My God, requiring a photo identification? That might prevent illegal aliens from voting. The horror! (sarc)"
Or it might prevent thousands from legally voting!!! A$shole
December 28th, 2007 at 3:51 am"It appears that the moonbats are cherry-picking NIEs. They point to the most recent NIE on Iran as factually based"
LOL, are you kidding? The most recent? Screw that!!! Let's get the 3rd most recent!!! Cause it has got to be more accurate than the most recent!!!! Der.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:54 am