60 percent of Americans want a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
By on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
60 percent of Americans want a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Teasing the release of the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll tonight, First Read reports that on the heels of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s embrace of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, “60% of registered voters believe it’s a good idea for the US to set such a timetable, while 30% say it’s a bad idea.” (HT: Atrios)
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
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
National Security
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Terrorism
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
Said Dick Cheney: “So?”
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:50 pmIt’s about time to set a time-table to end our hostile imperial occupation of Iraq. Just say no more BS to Bush and his “General Time Horizon: nonsense.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pmWell, well, well. There go those DFH again. Have they nothing better to do that wish for peace and prosperity? Sheesh…
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm“30% say it’s a bad idea”
This is the portion of the population that thinks our country is going in the right direction, think Bush is a good president and think Fox Noise is a balanced news source.
Their the bubble people.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pmIt’s not gonna happen until after they leave office, doesn’t matter what we want.
At this point, no matter what Obama says, I highly doubt even HE is going to get them out.
For the record I’m still voting, and still voting Obama. But all my HOPE that his CHANGE would be something I CAN BELIEVE IN is completely gone. I hope he proves me wrong. Israel, FISA, and now one of his legal advisors saying they probably won’t prosecute anyone in the Bush Administration if Obama wins the Presidency…it’s just more of the same BS all over again.
I have a feeling that at the end of 2009 the American people are going to have to rise up, en masse, and have a little cleaning house party in DC. Then we can bring the troops home OURSELVES.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pmCould someeone please explain to the Current Regime that when you are supposedly fighting for freedom and democracy, you should adhere to at least some democratic principles….
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm30% of us think that they know what’s best for those pesky brown people over there, somewhere, around that sandy area of the world, sorta by France or South Africa, there abouts. What’s a falafel anyway? A kind of bug or something.
30% of us couldn’t find Iraq on a map…could be more from what I have seen.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:58 pmCount me in the 60%. Should never have been there. WMD’s indeed! Vietnam in the desert, no doubt about it!
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:58 pmIt is a shame that moral standards have sunk so low that 60% of Americans openly advocate Treason.
Such is the effect of the “Family Values” presidunce !
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pmThe other 40% don’t want a timetable to get their own ass to Iraq.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pmMapleStreet:
I certainly hope that is some snarkery there.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pmMcWars:
Nice.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_dc
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pmSixty days sounds goods!
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm1) We should’nt have gone in to start with.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm2) The Iraquis don’t want us there.
3) A clear majority of American’s don’t want us there.
Obvious course of action, fix what’s fixable and move on. Repuglican course of action, hang in there till the money runs out, er.. until They stand up! George Orwell lives.
Impeach Pelosi, Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution!
backup:
I know this is what Obama says, and it is encouraging to hear him say it. But after FISA, forgive me if I have a hard time believing what the man says any longer.
This is not to say I think McCain is more honest.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pmSo it appears that neither the US nor Iraq have democracies—since vast majorities in both favor ending the occupation. If our reason for the war was not to bring them a democracy, then what was it? To control that part of the world because of the importance of OIL? That’s what PNAC and the Pentagon wrote in the ’90s.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pmThanks LT,
Your logic is sound at #5. Thanks for keeping your vote on Obama’s side.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm14. backup say:
SO?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 pmBush/Cheney response. So?
McPutz says; “I know what’s best for Iraq, and it means we will stay for 10,000 years….or until the oil runs out, whichever comes first.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pmhttp://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=552062
70% of people opposed the surge in 2007. Today, there seems to be some consensus that the surge has help to stabilize the situation.
Just because we poll people about what they think, doesn’t mean that we can use that information to make good military decisions.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:10 pmUncle Ho, The Middle East has a lot of sun and wind. Maybe we can steal—I mean liberate—that, too.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:13 pmbackup,
You don’t think our buying the support of our ex-enemies and the ethnic cleansing had anything to do with it?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:13 pmI’m amazed that only 60% want us out, after all this time and lives lost.
I moved to Panama 3 months ago and haven’t been keeping up on the news. I plan to move back to the US in about 2 years, but I’m wondering if things in Panama will be more stable than the US by then.
Too many good-intentioned Americans assume that the US will be the world’s great Superpower forever – as if it’s a given. All great powers eventually fall, and I’m truthfully fearful that the US is entering its own fall.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:15 pmbackup,
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:15 pmThe drop in violence was due to putting 100,000 insurgents on our payroll. We have to withdraw troops from Iraq because our Army and Marines are stretched to the breaking point and more are needed in Afghanistan.
100% of me wants Democrats to grow a pair
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pmbackup, I would hate to have to find out how successful the Surge™ would have been if we hadn’t been bribing warlords at the same time, and if Baghdad’s neighborhoods had not been ethnically cleansed already…
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pmhttp://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq-war-five-year-anniversary
If you look at this polling, 72% or respondents thought it was the right decision to go to war in Iraq in March of 2003.
Does the fact that 72% thought it was a good idea, make it a good idea?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm29. backup Says:
Because they were fed a constant diet of 935 LIES by the White House that the media did not question. 70% of our troops in Iraq thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pmupside, Keith, and ralph. I do believe that most of the gains from the surge were probably from a shift in attitude towards the Iraqis.
The Rumsfeld tact prior to Petraeus was a failure. Working with the Iraqis to deliver what they wanted, instead of against them to force what we wanted, is probably the main catalyst of the improved circumstance.
But, the additional troop presence probably also hastened better security.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pmupside, Keith, and ralph. I do believe that most of the gains from the surge were probably from a shift in attitude towards the Iraqis.
The Rumsfeld tact prior to Petraeus was a failure. Working with the Iraqis to deliver what they wanted, instead of against them to force what we wanted, is probably the main catalyst of the improved circumstance.
But, the additional troop presence probably also hastened better security.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pmDoes the fact that 72% thought it was a good idea, make it a good idea?
Please.
We didn’t know back then what we do now, about poor equipment, cherry-picked intel, exposed liars, and a missing 7 billion dollars.
You think maybe it would be safe to reassess former exhuberence, given what we now know?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pmHow is the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia / Kosovo in the ’90’s different from what Tribal factions in Iraq have done, especially in Sadr City?
We went in on the premise of democracy, & haven’t been at all concerned with ethnic cleansing. Could this mean that Cheney & Bush, by agreeing to fund such, are as guilty as the ‘Butcher of Bosnia’?
If so, let’s have the Trial for ALL OF THESE BUTCHERS at the same time in the Hague.
Save money. Save time. Save face.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:24 pmbackup,
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pmDo you believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Iraq was working with al Qaeda? Iraq had WMD in March ‘03? Iraq was a threat to us? That’s what those polled in ‘03 were misled into believing.
If you look at this polling, 72% or respondents thought it was the right decision to go to war in Iraq in March of 2003.
Does the fact that 72% thought it was a good idea, make it a good idea?
It has been well-established by now that the Bush Administration lied to the American people and manipulated intelligence to make the threat from Iraq seem bigger than it really was. That is an undeniable fact. A poll of Americans who, at the time, did not know they were being lied to really doesn’t mean anything any more, and certainly can’t be used as some kind of justification for going to war in Iraq.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:26 pmbackup,
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pmYou just cannot bring yourself to say we put 100,000 insurgent evil-doers on the US payroll, can you?
Where’s Grandpa McCain with his “You don’t know what you’re talking about, I know what’s best for all of us” talk? That is what makes him, “charming, warm, truthful and just an everyday straight talker” to the dim-witted media at-large.
You can hear the sizzle of the meats and smell the various sauces in the background as Johnie FlubFlub prepares to buy himself more credibility (once again) with the media window washers as he flies them in on Beer Force One. This time though, Johnie has a electric hand warmer so his hand leaves the warm imprint with every reporter after he slaps them on the back…Phil Gramm suggested that one, it’s psychological: a warm hand, a warm person.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pmI do believe that most of the gains from the surge were probably from a shift in attitude towards the Iraqis.
Then you are a fool..
Sadr’s cease fire, the ethnic cleansing of mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad, and the paying off of the tribal chiefs are mostly responsible for the lull in violence that has not resulted in significant political reconciliation.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pmSorry for the double post.
Matt, I think your missing my point.
The polling info was from 2003 to 2008. It shows steady decreases in support for the war.
My point is that (at one time) 72% of respondents thought going to war in Iraq was a good idea.
Did that support for the idea have any relevance to how good an idea it really was?
By the logic of this thread (60% of voters think a timetable is a good idea, so it must be a good idea), it would suggest that the 72% initial support for the Iraq war was evidence that it was also a good idea.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:30 pmRUCerious: Sadr’s cease fire, the ethnic cleansing of mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad, and the paying off of the tribal chiefs are mostly responsible for the lull in violence that has not resulted in significant political reconciliation.
In fact, reconciliation’s moving in the opposite direction, with the Kurds threatening to scuttle the coming elections over oil revenue allocations.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 pmThat violence in Iraq is down is not in much dispute. That “The Surge” was the only reason for it is very much in dispute.
“The Surge” did not “work” to end the violence. (Besides, there are more of our troops in Iraq now than before “The Surge”, which is supposedly over.) I will grant that it may have contributed, but I think that the right wing is giving way too much credit to “The Surge” for the decrease in violence. (And it wasn’t a “surge”, it was an “escalation”.)
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 pmJust because we poll people about what they think, doesn’t mean that we can use that information to make good military decisions.
Please point us to one, just one, good military decision made in the Bush administration. Frankly I would trust the poll much more than the known liars in the WH.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 pmMaybe a more relevent question: Can you bring yourself to say that the surge worked?
Alot of other people are saying it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 pmRegardless of how much we pay iraqi warlords not to shoot at our troops, the fact remains that the surge failed because there has been no reconciliation between the political faction in Iraq. that is what the surge was supposed to nuture, despite grandpa McDepends’ statements that “the surge is a success, just look at how General Lee has quit!”
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pmBy the logic of this thread (60% of voters think a timetable is a good idea, so it must be a good idea), it would suggest that the 72% initial support for the Iraq war was evidence that it was also a good idea.
But sold on lies, that we now know about.
Surely you’re not that obtuse.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pmTalking with Trolls is like trying to put lipstick on KKKarl…
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pmbackup,
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pmEveryone here got your point. Everyone here is saying that in March 2003, 70% of Americans were misled by 935 lies and now they realize the truth.
My point is that (at one time) 72% of respondents thought going to war in Iraq was a good idea.
And lots of folks once thought Bush would be a uniter too. Today is today. The current numbers count, not ones taken back in ancient history, when everyone thought Bush didn’t have the mental capacity of a foot stool.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pmbackup,
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 pmIf it’s Wednesday and it is raining–that doesn’t mean that being Wednesday caused it to rain, nor that raining caused it to be Wednesday!
backup Says:
By the logic of this thread (60% of voters think a timetable is a good idea, so it must be a good idea), it would suggest that the 72% initial support for the Iraq war was evidence that it was also a good idea.
Actually, the point is the shift in thinking among Americans as they have learned more about the reality of the Iraqi Occupation. It’s not about whether they’re “right”, it’s about how attitudes have changed.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 pmKeith.
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/obama-takes-surge-critici_n_112945.html
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 pmbackup, do you ever read any coments but your own? It has been explained over and over to you that the initial support for the war was based on Bush’s lies and manipulations. It wasn’t a good idea with the facts then, but who knew the facts other than the Butcher Bush and his evil cabal.
Please read more, assimilate, and STFU unless you have something to offer.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pmMaybe a more relevent question: Can you bring yourself to say that the surge worked?
Alot of other people are saying it.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
***takes verrry deeep breath***
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa.
Too funny. More comedy stylings from backup.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pmCan you bring yourself to say that the surge worked?
Alot of other people are saying it.
Excuse me, but a lot of right-wingers are saying it. It is not true. Period.
Besides, the officially stated public purpose for “The Surge” was to allow the Iraqi government “some breathing room” to get its act together. And what was the first thing they did when we sent our troops in there to risk their lives for the Iraqi government? The Iraqi government went on a Bush-like month-long vacation. And they have not solved the problems this “surge” was supposed to give them time to solve, and now we are announcing an end to “The Surge”. What was the point of it then?
I have to agree with what Keith Olbermann has been saying more and more lately: The entire purpose of the war in Iraq was so there would be a war in Iraq.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pmBy the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.
They still haven’t had political reconciliation, which is what it’s all about.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pmThey still haven’t had political reconciliation, which is what it’s all about.
backup, do you understand this component of the surge? The political recon portion for the reason the surge? Do you? You keep moving the GOP talking points, but you never honestly respond to the fact that your way is only 1/2 of the goal of the surge. Please stop wasting our space with GOP BS.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pmBaryfly, Wayne,
backup isn’t interested in facts, he’s interested in parroting republican talking points. He’s most likely one of those paid trolls mccain hired a few months back to gum up blogs.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pmAnd we have exhibit a: backup, a “serious” conservative, who continues to deny political reality, even when it’s giving him a Mohawk.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pmbarfly,
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pmYes, he is that obtuse and stop calling him Shirley.
gummitch. I respect that attitudes have changed. And it is obvious that the war is very unpopular and has been for a long time.
But, do you really think polling registered voters about military operations and security in Iraq provides information that should be used in our withdrawal?
From my link above (around 14):
If Iraqi leaders and our military leaders express concerns about our withdrawal, should our leaders say: Sorry, but 60% of registered voters think it’s a good idea, so we’re leaving regardless?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pmShirley Backup. Sounds like an old Hootchie Kootchie girl.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:46 pmbackup is swatting at flies. 60% here, 88% there, 12% over there, 35% from somewhere else…..
Better to keep you mouth shut and keep ‘em guessing, than speak and remove all doubt. Keep that in mind…
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pmBackup,
The troops who served during the surge do not credit the surge for the successes that Bush/McCain do. If the surge was a success then we can bring our troops home now. To say that we cannot bring our troops home now is to say that the surge failed. If it had accomplished its intended mission, then we would have a victory. Victory means exit strategy. And remember, all through the disastrous CPA/Rumsfeld policies of 2003-2006, McCain cheered them on. The Iraqi government has been asking us to leave for some time now – since the summer of 2007. I think we should do that. There is a reason why so many veterans and troops support Obama. By the way, if you really think the surge was a success – read this.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 pmbackup Says:
From my link above (around 14):
Obama said that Anbar tribal leaders and the province’s governor had expressed concern about a potential “precipitous drawdown” of U.S. troops.
If Iraqi leaders and our military leaders express concerns about our withdrawal, should our leaders say: Sorry, but 60% of registered voters think it’s a good idea, so we’re leaving regardless?
“Precipitous”. What does that word mean to you? Does that mean “16 months”? Does that mean “two years from now”?
What percentage of Iraqis want us to leave? If their elected officials, in this “democracy” we supposedly created, want us to leave on a specific timetable, don’t you agree that we should do just that?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:51 pmUh,oh. From (Huffpo): Joe Klein: John McCain’s Comment On Obama Wanting To Lose War “Most Scurrilous” He’s Ever Heard
Appearing on Anderson Cooper 360 tonight on CNN, Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein said that John McCain’s comments Tuesday that Barack Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election were the most scurrilous he had ever heard by a major party candidate.
On his blog on the Time Magazine website, Klein wrote that the comment “smacks of desperation.”
When a republican presidential candidate can’t get a Joe Klein tongue-bath, you know he’s in real trouble.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pmStratRat and Wayne and others. (sorry can’t read that fast).
You aren’t going to get political reconciliation without security and stability.
By many accountants we have greater security and stability in Iraq. Hopefully, more political reconciliation will occur.
BTW, do we have political reconciliation in the U.S.?
And if the surge hasn’t worked, or been the failure that was predicted – why has the surge criticism been pulled from Obama’s website?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pmBut, do you really think polling registered voters about military operations and security in Iraq provides information that should be used in our withdrawal?
I don’t think people should be polled about anything about which they know little or nothing, but pollsters get paid to do it, so it gets done.
Having said that, I, and many other Americans, were against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning because we knew the president was lying about the danger they posed to us.
And stop twisting things to make another straw man argument. You gave a quote about how in Anbar they were concerned about a “precipitous drawdown”. Then you turn around and re-characterize “precipitous drawdown” as being the same as “withdrawal.” Obama has never, ever, even once, said that we should “precipitously drawdown” our troops in Iraq. NEVER!
Do you right-wingers even understand the first thing about a debate? You’re supposed to use facts, not twisted versions of them.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pmbackup Says:
If Iraqi leaders and our military leaders express concerns about our withdrawal, should our leaders say: Sorry, but 60% of registered voters think it’s a good idea, so we’re leaving regardless?
######
The Iraqi government, their parliament, and their National Security Adviser are asking for SPECIFIC DATES.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pmBy many administration accountants we have greater security and stability in Iraq.
Fixed your typo.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pmBy many accountants we have greater security and stability in Iraq. Hopefully, more political reconciliation will occur.
According to whom? (I can’t promise that everyone else will ignore your typo, unless you were talking about the cash flow problem in Iraq.) I disagree that “we have greater security and stability in Iraq.” What we have is less violence, and a very fragile reduction in that violence at best (according to the reports I’ve heard from our commanders there.) I would not be so quick to call the reduction in violence “secure” or “stable”.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pmgummitch. I believe that what’s happening now is that Iraqis want us to leave and we want to leave. Negotiations are happening for that to happen. There is a debate ongoing about whether there should be a timetable or whether withdrawal should be based on conditions. And a separate debate about whether we should maintain bases there or not.
If the leadership of Iraq tells us to leave we should leave. But, as far as I know, that hasn’t happened yet.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:57 pmWhat backup knows, but is afraid to say, is he’s afraid that when we leave, and stop paying the various factions, we’ll get more violence – right, backup?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pmbackup Says:
BTW, do we have political reconciliation in the U.S.?
This is truly one of the weakest strawmen you’ve produced yet. The US does not have centuries-old ethnic and religious strife to overcome and is not in the process of emerging (if we’re lucky) from a civil war. This is appallingly stupid, backup.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 pmBTW, do we have political reconciliation in the U.S.?
And if the surge hasn’t worked, or been the failure that was predicted – why has the surge criticism been pulled from Obama’s website?
More swatting at flies…Mixing and matching various quotes, time frames, reasons, definitions, polls, etc…Anything and everything you can throw at the wall, huh?
Why does comparing our political status with Iraq’s seem to work for you? It shouldn’t. They are lightyears apart – but you already know this. Do you think you are posting at Red State?
Also, Obama updated his website, as we all do. What did you want him to do, just leave up every post he has ever placed on the site? Things get switched and changed. Funny, you don’t mention the scrubbed CBS issues from yesterday. Hmmmm. Any reason?
Face it, your argument is toast. NEXT!
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pmSince 63% of Iraqis approve of attacks on US troops, I think it is safe to say that the majority want us to leave.
Every time Obama speaks about the withdrawal, he says that , of course, it is dependent on conditions on the ground and military consultation.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pmIf the leadership of Iraq tells us to leave we should leave. But, as far as I know, that hasn’t happened yet.
backup,
Why don’t you watch this very short video. It’s less than 45 seconds long.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oNGevn8vHRg
They HAVE asked us to leave.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pmWayne. I’m not expert. I have talked to operational commander (Marine O-6) a year ago who said the surge was working after the failures early on. and we needed to redeploy troops to Afghanistan as better security in Iraq permitted.
Most news accounts suggest that things have improved (security wise) and just the anecdotal evidence that Obama is in the country and I believe has made remarks that security has improved.
I guess it could all be theatre, but the information that things are significantly more stable and secure in Iraq is seems to be overwhelming the information to the contrary.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pmIf the leadership of Iraq tells us to leave we should leave. But, as far as I know, that hasn’t happened yet.
So, Malaki has not spoken directly to you, so you won’t believe it when it is plastered all over the network news? Hmmm, stay by the phone, he may be calling you right now for permission to ask us to leave. What a putz…
Be nice to him – it has cost us $1 trillion dollars to get to this point.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pmNo dimwit. We are not at war. Congress must declare war. Even for you knuckledraggers, this is quite a famous talking point “But, we ae at war!!!! Run and hide!!!!”. Wrong, as always.
Change your bedsheets, ask your mom to put plastic on them so you won’t slide off when the tide goes out.
You are a pussy and a coward.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pmNettles,
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pmDefine “win”.
Keith Says:
Nettles,
Define “win”.
Nettles needs to feel superior to others, so he lives vicariously through the actions of those much braver and patriotic than he. A true believer in King George the Dumb.
It’s a pathetic existance, but it’s all he got. WATB!
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pmNettles Says:
A publicly declared timeline for withdrawel may be the dumbest theory ever concocted by all of you whining ninnies. Face facts, Milqtoast family: We Are At War, a war that many Americans still want to win.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
_______
No we’re not. To be at war, Congress has to declare war. Congress did not declare war, therefore we are not at war.
We are in an illegal occupation. The only way to “win” an illegal occupation is to stop occupying.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pmYes, in 1998, many BELIEVED they had WMD.
Then we sent in the expert weapons inspectors and after they looked everywhere and found nothing, we KNEW they did not have WMD.
I’m trying to keep it simple, so you will understand.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pmIt looks like elections may be off for this year in Iraq. That may be trouble as al-Sadr was thought to be holding his people off on the hopes of gaining power relatively legitimately through the planned October elections.
‘BAGHDAD – Iraq’s presidential council on Wednesday rejected a draft provincial elections law and sent it back to parliament for reworking — a major blow to U.S. hopes that the vote can be held this year.
The decision was likely to delay the elections until next year because there would not be sufficient time to make the necessary preparations. U.S. officials have pushed hard for the polls, which had been due by Oct. 1, as a key step toward repairing Iraq’s sectarian divisions.’
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pmbackup,
There is a difference between a situation being “more stable” and “more secure” than it was before, and being “stable” and “secure”. You are equating the two. Our military commanders have said that the reduction in violence is “fragile”.
And did you watch the video of the Iraqi government person saying they want our troops out by the end of 2010?
You are continuing to defend the indefensible.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pmWhoops, here comes the facts nettles….Are you ready for them? Do you have a pad of paper and a writing utensil?
Sit quietly as we explain the world your idiot in chief has created for you. You won’t be happy.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pmNettles Says:
Half the posters here probably think the Bush administration knew about 9/11.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Wrong. We don’t “think” the Bush Administration knew about 9/11. We know it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pmmary,
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pmIf there is a strike on Iran (either by US or Israel) Sadr and al-Sistani won’t be holding back their people any longer and there will be blood.
Keith Says:
mary,
If there is a strike on Iran (either by US or Israel) Sadr and al-Sistani won’t be holding back their people any longer and there will be blood.
It will be raining from the sky, right onto our brave soldiers who are stuck in that civil war. We have no business staying in Iraq, after this weeks announcements by the Iraqi government.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pmI concur Keith. But I do worry about the effects of delaying those elections. That may not bode well for holding back either.
Now, if there are no provincial elections AND we strike Iran, well…that wouldn’t be good.
I’m sure the right-wing wackos, though, will find a way to blame Obama.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:28 pmNettles Says:
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Wow, this post was filled with a good deal of the more uneducated kind of thinking displayed by the right wing.
Face facts, Milqtoast family: We Are At War, a war that many Americans still want to win.
Congress has not declared war. We are currently occupying a nation in violation of international law because of a war we started in violation of international law.
Face facts, cowards: the surge worked and is continuing to save lives every day.
Well, we already explained at length how this is a lie.
Post after post whines and weeps for Bush to be sent to The Hague, compares Bush to Milosevic, Mugabe, even Hitler.
Bush has committed war crimes with his illegal war, so, yes, he should face a trial at The Hague. I’m not going to compare him to Mugabe or Milosevic, and the only comparisons to Hitler that could be made would have to talk about how his grandfather helped fund Hitler’s war machine. (You do know that is a fact, don’t you?)
Half the posters here probably think the Bush administration knew about 9/11.
Well, if there weren’t so many facts that support this notion, maybe it wouldn’t have such legs. I won’t go so far (as some have) as to say that Bush (or his people) helped plan the attacks, but they sure seemed ready to take full advantage of them. Probably just a coincidence.
Face facts, Lyndon Larouche-bags: The Iraq Liberation Act was written in 1998 by the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION because it was the right thing to do.
The Iraq Liberation Act, introduced by Republican Ben Gilman, did indeed state:
If you read the bill, however (you can find it here), you will see that NOWHERE does it state that this regime change should be accomplished militarily. (For such an action would violate international law.)
And, as someone has correctly pointed out, when we did finally get the weapons inspectors in there, they found that Iraq no longer had any WMD and had destroyed them all as they were supposed to do after the first Gulf War.
Have you got any FACTS to tell us now?
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:33 pmbackup Says:
BTW, do we have political reconciliation in the U.S.?
Yes are coming very close. George W. Bush has united 75% of the US against him, and the Republicans will be fully marginalized Nov. 4.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pmWhy is everyone ignoring the elephant in the room.?
Is America planning to maintain PERMANENT MILITARY BASES in Iraq?
Have Bush Announce that we WILL, and watch the Surge Stop Working.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pmBarack’s lil’ shimmy to the right was both tactically brilliant and spiritually uplifting to those of us who think that Jack Murtha is a pile of manure. Now if he would admit what he knows to be the truth, that the Petraeus surge was the right thing all along.
Look, you little Jean Schmidt wannabe, you have no basis at all for calling Jack Murtha “a pile of manure”. Your entire post was nothing but a display of ignorance and arrogance on your part. And now it’s the “Petraeus surge”? I thought Bush was supposed to be commanding the military (and doing it very badly, I might add.)
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm11. Liberal Traitor
Simple logic my friend. The Commander in Chief says that anyone who wants to get out is a traitor. 60% of the people say they want out. Logical conclusion – 60% are traitors (and were probably not traitors before the Bush WH.
I say we use this to say that the Bush WH has lowered our morals to the point that 60% are traitors.
And you’re right, I am partly toungue in cheek about this.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:26 pmWayne. I watched your link. I’m aware that the Iraqis are promoting the idea for a timetable, but this is also from the 21st.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-07-20-2873054939_x.htm
I think we’re debating how the U.S. will withdraw. I don’t think Iraqis (leadership) have asked the U.S. to get out.
We obviously have a stake in what happens to our 150,000 troops. If we can’t agree with the elected leadership in Iraq on a timetable or bases or any other issue, the Iraqi leadership can tell us to leave. When they do that, we should go.
That hasn’t happened yet.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:38 pmJim, buddy stop. 55% here, 65% there, 34% over there, 23% from somewhere else, 87% from another place.
You like fractions, we get it. Tell me: Is there a fraction small enough for you to describe the chances of McCain winning in November?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 pmJim. Despite the poll results, I think the Middle East/Europe trip will be a huge win for Obama.
He looks presidential. It answers some of the questions about whether he is ready for prime time. He looks like he can hold his own.
It was a risky trip. So far, he’s risen to the occasion. I believe it bodes well for Barack.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 pmThose 60% of Americans are in their last throes, if you will.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pmhttp://www.electoral-vote.com/
says that Obama leads in electoral votes: 292-219
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm(Strong leads: 207-83)
projected Democratic lead in Senate: 57-43
projected Democratic lead in House: 239-196
.
Q U E S T I O N:
When 60% of the population are ignored…
… WHERE IS THE DEMOCRACY IN THAT?
.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:09 am.
backup,
What kind of man promises to not ring a bell, only to proceed to ring that bell promising to unring… IF you elect him?
ANSWER:
Status quObama!
But seriously,
How can he undo his Senate vote should he be elected to the presidency? HOW? Please explain, I’m eager to listen…
Wouldn’t this “undoing” require one of two things…
1) A Congress, void of Obama, passes legislation to rewrite what he voted for…
2) A Supreme Court ruling that his vote was UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Either way, you prefer to hedge your bet for a man who screwed your civil protections in order to achieve a “COMPROMISE” of your Civil Rights… Like Bush is already doing to all of us WITH Senator Obama’s support… NO?
.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:19 ambackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Just as 70% of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, a like number don’t think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there, the poll suggested.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=552062
70% of people opposed the surge in 2007. Today, there seems to be some consensus that the surge has help to stabilize the situation.
Just because we poll people about what they think, doesn’t mean that we can use that information to make good military decisions.
“Silly Dittoheads and their Silly thoughts that this so called Surge Worked”
The Surge has nothing to do with the violence coming down. It was the Bribes that worked and the fact that the Insurgents know Obama will be Pres. and that shortly we will be outa of there.
Pretty obvious to them and the non-Dittohead non-fascist non-war-mongering evil types like this poster.
The Bloodlust of the Dittoheads is quite scary – no better than the Nazi’s.
Thank God there are no evil fascist Dittoheads in heaven!
July 24th, 2008 at 10:51 am