MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2006-05-01-poll.htm
This is like, fun
It's new same old info every day!
This is like, fun
It's new same old info every day!
34%
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
^ wow, 63% disapproval!
at last we're finally catching up to the rest of the world where his disapproval ratings are equally as high.
at last we're finally catching up to the rest of the world where his disapproval ratings are equally as high.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
No, that is 63% approval of what he is not doing.
Irvine511 said:
well below?
organizers said 300,000 -- pick whichever number you feel works best for you, since that's what you'll do anyway.
the DC march was on Darfur -- the anti-war march was focused in NYC.
i do not have numbers on the Darfur demonstrations.
all this, combined with the immigration marches, and it was one rough weekend to be a Republican.
Oh, the organizers claimed there were 300,000. I'm sure thats how many people they wanted if not more, but find an independent source which says there were 300,000 people there. The best I've seen is tens of thousands.
Darfur is not Iraq, so numbers for that demonstration are not relevant to the issue.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
[q]Poll: Gas Prices, Iraq Weigh Down Bush
May 1, 2006
(CBS) With gas prices sky-high and no end of the Iraq war in sight, President George W. Bush's approval rating hits an all-time low in a new CBS News poll.
Only 33 percent approve of his job performance, Mr. Bush's lowest approval rating yet in CBS News polls. A majority – 58 percent of those polled – say they disapprove of the president. Mr. Bush appears to be losing support from his own party. His approval rating among Republicans has dropped to 68 percent
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/01/opinion/polls/main1567675.shtml
[/q]
and this is a president presiding over a 4.7% unemployment rate! with such a roaring economy, he must be doing a particularly bad job in Iraq!
we're also 6 years in. voters know him. his approval ratings aren't going anywhere soon, as opposed to Clinton who was around 38% early in his term and then skyrocketed.
Bush has become Carter.
and i wonder what will happen when the economic boom collapses due to his reckless spending. he better hope he's out of office by then -- it's not like his numbers can get too much worse!
i suppose one thing he has to his advantage is that Iraq is now so bad, so chaotic, so many promises unfulfilled, that any news other than news that depicts how bad, chaotic, and unfulfilled Iraq is can only boost his ratings.
behold, ladies and gentleman -- the american who most benefits from the soft bigotry of low expectations!
May 1, 2006
(CBS) With gas prices sky-high and no end of the Iraq war in sight, President George W. Bush's approval rating hits an all-time low in a new CBS News poll.
Only 33 percent approve of his job performance, Mr. Bush's lowest approval rating yet in CBS News polls. A majority – 58 percent of those polled – say they disapprove of the president. Mr. Bush appears to be losing support from his own party. His approval rating among Republicans has dropped to 68 percent
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/01/opinion/polls/main1567675.shtml
[/q]
and this is a president presiding over a 4.7% unemployment rate! with such a roaring economy, he must be doing a particularly bad job in Iraq!
we're also 6 years in. voters know him. his approval ratings aren't going anywhere soon, as opposed to Clinton who was around 38% early in his term and then skyrocketed.
Bush has become Carter.
and i wonder what will happen when the economic boom collapses due to his reckless spending. he better hope he's out of office by then -- it's not like his numbers can get too much worse!
i suppose one thing he has to his advantage is that Iraq is now so bad, so chaotic, so many promises unfulfilled, that any news other than news that depicts how bad, chaotic, and unfulfilled Iraq is can only boost his ratings.
behold, ladies and gentleman -- the american who most benefits from the soft bigotry of low expectations!
Irvine511 said:
Well, I'm sure this will warm your heart some more. Bush's approval rating in the Gallup Poll has now fallen to its lowest level ever, at 34%. But there are still four Presidents since World War II that have had a lower approval rating than the Presidents as the following chart shows.
When it comes to Republicans though, Bush's approval rating has gone up from 74% to 81%! The approval rating among Independents is 21% and 6% of Democrats approve.
Presidential Approval Ratings Low Points
Harry S. Truman
23%
Nov. 1951, Jan. 1952
Richard Nixon
24%
Jul. 1974, Aug. 1974
Jimmy Carter
28%
Jun. 1979
George H.W. Bush
29%
Jul. 1992
George W. Bush
34%
Apr. 2006
Lyndon B. Johnson
35%
Aug. 1968
Ronald Reagan
35%
Jan. 1983
Bill Clinton
37%
Jun. 1993
Gerald Ford
37%
Jan. 1975, Mar. 1975
Dwight D. Eisenhower
48%
Jul. 1960
John F. Kennedy
56%
Sep. 1963
Harry S. Truman is aknowledged to be one of the greatest Presidents the United States ever had, but in January 1952, that was far from the case with a 23% approval rating.
All this polling means little though if it does not have a significant impact on election night such as a change of party control in the Senate Or House in 2006, or both houses plus the White House in 2008. As for right now, team Bush and the Republicans are still setting and carrying out this countries policies as they have been elected to do by the people of this country.
Last edited:
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Are people disapproving of the President or do they disapprove of gas prices, with the President as proxy for general pocketbook conditions?
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
it's less that it warms my heart and more that it validates what 50% of this country has known since 1999 -- George W. Bush is the most incompetent president in memory.
anyway, all of the comparisons to other presidents are far to facile to be taken seriously since they ignore important things such as, you know, the Vietnam War and/or Watergate, precisely *when* in one's term the low approval rating happens (Regan, Clinton), the increased polarization of the country, and the fact that neither Carter nor Bush 1 were re-elected.
so i suppose W is in really stellar company. and he's been falling gradually since 2004, and it hasn't been an up-and-down fluctuation with events; it's been a steady drop combined with a steady increase of those who strongly disapprove and his abandonment by most independents.
all this with a (temporarily) booming economy.
[q]As for right now, team Bush and the Republicans are still setting and carrying out this countries policies as they have been elected to do by the people of this country.[/q]
which is why it is in every American's best interests to pray for the Democrats to retake the House (which they probably will) and the Senate (which they probably won't). history has taught us that a divided government governs best.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
the numbers have been in steady decline since 2004. the gas prices probably hurt, but not significantly enough to put Bush anywhere near 40%. they also provide him with an opportunity to look pro-active and decisive and like a leader, but it's difficult to do so when your administration is staffed with Big Oil executives.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
anitram said:
the 12 or so remaining Dixiecrats -- the Zell Millers of the South.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
Do you know which cabinent member(s) have ties to Big Oil?
Irvine511 said:
George Bush received the first majority in the popular vote for a President since 1988, in the 2004 election. Most people thought he was indeed compentent and approved of his policies that he implemented during his first four years in office.
The statistics comparing the approval ratings of past presidents is relevant, and it shows that nearly all presidents since World War II have at some point seen low approval ratings like this. Bill Clinton without all the things that Bush has had to deal with, still saw approval numbers that were in the 30s. Bush has another 2 years and 9 months in office. His approval ratings could indeed rebound.
The economy has been steadily growing since 2002 with a steady drop in unemployment. The Democrats really do not have much to shoot at here. By this time next year, unemployment will likely be equal to the lowest level of the Clinton administration.
As for the November 2006 elections, if the Democrats cannot take back the House, it will prove that all this doomsday talk about the political position of Bush and the Republicans was hot air. Even if Democrats take back the House, it may not mean much considering how the Democrats have shown little unity over the past 6 years.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
So he will sing it in Spanish to pander for votes
And then he will denounce it
when his poll numbers are low.
Why do 32 per cent still believe this guy?
His credibility is zero.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
deep said:
Please.
The song currently at issue is a revision (paraphrase) of our national anthem - not just the National Anthem in spanish.
He wasn't commanding that all communication be in english.
Nice way to dodge the question entirely.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
When I look at the 2004 elections, I think of John Kerry's failure, not George Bush's success. The Republican Party isn't in great shape, but the Democratic Party is a mess. 
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
and he's dropped from a 50% approval rating (going by your logic) to 32% in less than two years. how much farther and how much faster can he fall? all your shouting about a majority in the popular vote makes his fall that much more profound.
[q]The statistics comparing the approval ratings of past presidents is relevant, and it shows that nearly all presidents since World War II have at some point seen low approval ratings like this. Bill Clinton without all the things that Bush has had to deal with, still saw approval numbers that were in the 30s. Bush has another 2 years and 9 months in office. His approval ratings could indeed rebound.[/q]
read more closely. it's not that they aren't relevant, it's that they are too simplistic (like most of your numbers) -- it's far more accurate to compare 2nd term presidents to 2nd term presidents, to take account of national catastrophies/embarassments (Watergate, Vietnam) and to take note of the fact that two of the presidents who at one time were lower than W were both 1 term presidents. it's also important to look at how long the approval rating has been below 40%, as well as the fact that it has been a strong, steady decline that is due to incompetence on a series of events from disasters like Katrina to foreign policy mishaps like Iraq to the misuse of political capital like on social security to general stupidity like shooting a man in the face and then waiting a day to tell the local press to make sure the alcohol had cleared from Cheney's system.
we're 6 years into this presidency. voters know who Bush is. barring another terrorist attack or something resembling measurable progress in Iraq, Bush isn't going anywhere north of 40%. he isn't Ronald Reagan in 1983, and he isn't Bill Clinton in 1993. he is George W. Bush in 2006.
[q]The economy has been steadily growing since 2002 with a steady drop in unemployment. The Democrats really do not have much to shoot at here. By this time next year, unemployment will likely be equal to the lowest level of the Clinton administration.[/q]
and this has done nothing for the approval ratings of the administration and Congress. the American people sense that something is deeply, deeply wrong with the direction of the country, and good economic news (however unsustainable it will be) isn't enough to ameliorate it.
and this makes Bush's abysmal approval ratings all that much more astonishing.
[q]As for the November 2006 elections, if the Democrats cannot take back the House, it will prove that all this doomsday talk about the political position of Bush and the Republicans was hot air. Even if Democrats take back the House, it may not mean much considering how the Democrats have shown little unity over the past 6 years.[/q]
i have little love or respect for the Democrats, but their political ineptitude does NOTHING to excuse the mess that has been made of the country over the past 6 years.
we'll also see just what scare tactics the Republicans can pull out of their hats. terror alerts? gay-bashing on the floors of Congress?
the other reality is that Congressional districts have been so gerrymandered by both parties that real overhauls of the House and/or Senate in the past are an impossibility.
and it's important to note the amount of Republicans who do not want Bush to campaign for them in their districts, so radioactive has he become.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
[q]"I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/28/D8H94LTG0.html
[/q]
he's plainly saying that it should be sung in English, period. nothing about revisions.
i agree that the most contentious part of the debate is about the revisions, but that's not what Bush has concerned himself with.
Irvine511 said:
At the end of the day, these are just polls that have no relevant effect on policy. Perhaps its fun and comforting for those that oppose Bush to see such polls, but beyond that, they don't mean very much. The real test are presidential and congressional elections and so far, Bush and the Republicans are undefeated in this area since 2000.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
if such polls had no affect on policy, how do you explain Bush's failure on the port issue? on social security? on Medicaid spending? on the amount of congressional republicans who are fleeing his shadow and attempting to distance themselves from him?
just read the NYT article today on northeastern Republicans who are campaigning on just how different they are from the president:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/nyregion/03campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
how better to distance yourself from W than by voting against his policy measures?
and Bush's brand of Republicanism -- high spending, warmongering, fearmongering, federally financed Christianist moralism, scapegoating of social minorities, anti-environment, anti-science -- will hopefully be dead and buried by 2008, along with all the Republicans who are going to find him a liability over the next 2-4 years (note how even Sen. Allen from VA is distancing himself from W, saying he's much more of a Regan Republican).
the fact that McCain -- a man who goes to tremendous lengths to distance himself from Bush in that he believes in global warming and doesn't like to torture people -- is the front-runner is yet another testimony to the abject failure of this presidency.
and don't forget that Bush won two of the closest elections in history.
Irvine511 said:
Sorry, but those domestic issues could be overturned against a president regardless of his approval rating in a poll of 1,000 people.
Look at US foreign policy, the war on terror, as well as the war in Iraq and Afganistan. These are the most important and immediate issues for the country and it continues to be Bush's policy regardless of what critics would like to see or what the polls claim.
Precisely how many of the 215+ House Republicans are "running away from Bush"? There are always members of each party in the House of Representitives who distance themselves from the White House if they think it will help their re-election chances.
As for McCain, he and Bush have generally the same views on foreign policy, the war, trade, and the economy. Thats why the majority of people who voted for Bush will have no problem voting for McCain. The fact that McCain is the front runner is not a surprise and the only reason he did not win in 2000 was because much of the party's funding machine had lined up behind Bush. But the funding machine that helped elect Bush, is now lining up behind McCain.
Republicans less likely to vote for McCain in the Republicans primary's will be much more likely to vote for McCain if the Republicans lose control of the House Of Representitives. How ironic it is that if the Democrats were to achieve their goals in the November 2006 election, they may in fact be clearing the way totally for a candidate that they cannot defeat.
blueyedpoet
Refugee
STING2 said:
Are you serious? The evidence is clear. Bush lied about the Iraqi-al-Qaeda link. Bush knowingly had intelligence spooks "sex up" evidence of WMD's in Iraq. Bush lied about how no one could've foreseen anything like 9/11 happening? Bush lied about the Plame leak? Bush lied about how no once could've foreseen Hurricane Katrina breaking the levees. The problem is Congress is fully of a bunch of republican pansies (not that there aren't any democrat ie Joe Lieberman).
STING2 said:
According to you it's best if the Dems don't field any candidates for Congress or the Presidency, ever again, since if they lose, they're losers and if they're win they're still losers. Best not to bother at all, let's move ahead with a monarchy.
Barbara and Jenna, come on up!
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
what happened to his political capital? what happened to the first! president! with! a! majority! who also controlls all branches of the government. why has Bush been so hapless and ineffectual when there are no obstacles towards the enactment of his agenda.
and i love how you discount polls when they don't work in your favor!
[q]Look at US foreign policy, the war on terror, as well as the war in Iraq and Afganistan. These are the most important and immediate issues for the country and it continues to be Bush's policy regardless of what critics would like to see or what the polls claim. [/q]
the fact that Bush hasn't changed policy is precisely one of the resaons his approval rating is so low. it's a bad policy, and everyone sees this, from Colin Powell to retired generals to 70% or more of the American public, it's that Bush *cannot* change his policy (and fire that horror of a Defense Secretary) without admitting that he's just made the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.
[q]Precisely how many of the 215+ House Republicans are "running away from Bush"? There are always members of each party in the House of Representitives who distance themselves from the White House if they think it will help their re-election chances.[/q]
the northeastern Republicans. most Republicans in blue states. most Republicans who are going to be running for president in 2008 who are going to try and cast themselves as Reagan Republicans and stay as far away from Bush as possible.
[q]As for McCain, he and Bush have generally the same views on foreign policy, the war, trade, and the economy. Thats why the majority of people who voted for Bush will have no problem voting for McCain. The fact that McCain is the front runner is not a surprise and the only reason he did not win in 2000 was because much of the party's funding machine had lined up behind Bush. But the funding machine that helped elect Bush, is now lining up behind McCain.[/q]
and McCain and Bush differ greatly when it comes to most social issues, taxes, global warming, the prosecution of the GWOT as well as Iraq (McCain wanted more troops from the beginning). oh, and McCain doesn't think that torture should be part of official US policy
McCain is so much like a democrat in a Lieberman mold that i'm surprised you like him so much.
you're also kidding yourself about what happened to McCain in 2000. it was far more than the party's funding machine. it was that McCain couldn't speak to the fundamentalists in the way that a folksy "jesus-changed-muh-heart" George Bush could, and Rove's strategy had always been to find ways to motivate the evangelicals alienated from the political process.
[q]Republicans less likely to vote for McCain in the Republicans primary's will be much more likely to vote for McCain if the Republicans lose control of the House Of Representitives. How ironic it is that if the Democrats were to achieve their goals in the November 2006 election, they may in fact be clearing the way totally for a candidate that they cannot defeat. [/q]
ah, but for me, unlike you, it isn't about R's and D's. i'd be very happy with a Republican president and a Democratic house. or vice versa. i'd be fine with McCain as president and the Democrats controlling the house. in fact, i'd be happy with virtually ANYONE else in the white house other than George Bush.
how ironic that for all your vitriol against "the left" and "the media" for being slanted or biased or in possession of some mysterious agenda, you're far, far more blind in your loyalties than nearly anyone else on this board. if it's Republican, it's good. if it's Democrat, it's bad.
it's this Manichean worldview, shared by Mr. Bush, that i find to be the exact antithesis of democracy.
i'm sure a dictatorship would be a whole lot easier.
Irvine511 said:
what happened to his political capital? what happened to the first! president! with! a! majority! who also controlls all branches of the government. why has Bush been so hapless and ineffectual when there are no obstacles towards the enactment of his agenda.
and i love how you discount polls when they don't work in your favor!
[q]Look at US foreign policy, the war on terror, as well as the war in Iraq and Afganistan. These are the most important and immediate issues for the country and it continues to be Bush's policy regardless of what critics would like to see or what the polls claim. [/q]
the fact that Bush hasn't changed policy is precisely one of the resaons his approval rating is so low. it's a bad policy, and everyone sees this, from Colin Powell to retired generals to 70% or more of the American public, it's that Bush *cannot* change his policy (and fire that horror of a Defense Secretary) without admitting that he's just made the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.
[q]Precisely how many of the 215+ House Republicans are "running away from Bush"? There are always members of each party in the House of Representitives who distance themselves from the White House if they think it will help their re-election chances.[/q]
the northeastern Republicans. most Republicans in blue states. most Republicans who are going to be running for president in 2008 who are going to try and cast themselves as Reagan Republicans and stay as far away from Bush as possible.
[q]As for McCain, he and Bush have generally the same views on foreign policy, the war, trade, and the economy. Thats why the majority of people who voted for Bush will have no problem voting for McCain. The fact that McCain is the front runner is not a surprise and the only reason he did not win in 2000 was because much of the party's funding machine had lined up behind Bush. But the funding machine that helped elect Bush, is now lining up behind McCain.[/q]
and McCain and Bush differ greatly when it comes to most social issues, taxes, global warming, the prosecution of the GWOT as well as Iraq (McCain wanted more troops from the beginning). oh, and McCain doesn't think that torture should be part of official US policy
McCain is so much like a democrat in a Lieberman mold that i'm surprised you like him so much.
you're also kidding yourself about what happened to McCain in 2000. it was far more than the party's funding machine. it was that McCain couldn't speak to the fundamentalists in the way that a folksy "jesus-changed-muh-heart" George Bush could, and Rove's strategy had always been to find ways to motivate the evangelicals alienated from the political process.
[q]Republicans less likely to vote for McCain in the Republicans primary's will be much more likely to vote for McCain if the Republicans lose control of the House Of Representitives. How ironic it is that if the Democrats were to achieve their goals in the November 2006 election, they may in fact be clearing the way totally for a candidate that they cannot defeat. [/q]
ah, but for me, unlike you, it isn't about R's and D's. i'd be very happy with a Republican president and a Democratic house. or vice versa. i'd be fine with McCain as president and the Democrats controlling the house. in fact, i'd be happy with virtually ANYONE else in the white house other than George Bush.
how ironic that for all your vitriol against "the left" and "the media" for being slanted or biased or in possession of some mysterious agenda, you're far, far more blind in your loyalties than nearly anyone else on this board. if it's Republican, it's good. if it's Democrat, it's bad.
it's this Manichean worldview, shared by Mr. Bush, that i find to be the exact antithesis of democracy.
i'm sure a dictatorship would be a whole lot easier.
Bill Clinton and the democrats controlled everything from January 1993 to January 1995. They did not exactly accomplish a lot and it resulted in the first Republican majority in congress since the 1950s.
On Foreign Policy, Bush has not been hapless and ineffective and has been able to implement his agenda with relative ease.
Colin Powell supports the policy. Because he wanted more troops initially does not change the fact that he supported the removal of Saddam and believes in the current policy which involves the training of a new Iraqi military and the development of a new government in Iraq, after which the United States will be able to withdraw from the country. There is virtually no disagreement between what he thinks on the issue with what the President thinks. It was Colin Powell's strategy from a diplomatic standpoint that was followed to a tee from September 2002 to March 2003 in the run up to the war.
So many people claim that Colin Powell thinks this or thinks that, but he set the record straight in his Barbara Walters interview over a year after he had left. He said that "when the President said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain defiance of 17 UN resolutions, I'm right there with him on the use of military force". He then went on to say that the President is on the right path towards succeeding in Iraq. Building the Iraqi military and the government. This will help to produce a stable Iraq that can handle threats to its security internally and externally. US troops will then be able to withdraw and the mission which involved the removal of Saddam's regime and the development of a new government which is not a threat to its neighbors will be complete.
I was hoping you would be able to give me some solid numbers on the 231 Republicans in congress as far as who is actually "running away from the President". Sure, Republicans in districts that typically vote democratic ALWAYS balance their campaigns in away to appear they are not marching behind a President that is in their party.
I don't agree with the President on most social issues either. But social issues are far on the back burner when it comes to picking a President in my view. The Presidency is essentially a foreign policy position in terms of his powers. Defense, National Security, Foreign Policy, Trade and the economy are all issues that the Presidents policy can have a big impact on. They are the most vital issues. On these issues, there is little if any difference between Bush and McCain.
Joe Lieberman is a democrat I could vote for.
In 2000, the Republican funding machine worked to get the fundamentalist for Bush against McCain. Money is key. Its rare that a candidate loses a primary when the funding machine is behind him.
The United States is in the middle of a war and most Democrats unfortunately are doing everything they can to hinder the war. Its this resistence that the insurgents in Iraq and Al Quada are looking for. They do not possess the strength to defeat the US military in combat. What they can do is increase the cost for the United States and hope that this cost impacts political events within the country to a degree that they can force the United States to withdraw before it has accomplished its mission. Their victory gauge for them is the level of protest across the country as well as any other type of political opposition to the current policy which could result in their ultimate goal of a pre-mature US military withdrawal without having accomplished its goals.
As far as being blind, it seems many have blind opposition towards Bush. Much has been accomplished by this administration, but few if anyone in this forum will ever truely aknowledge it.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
while i disagree, i have no actual problems with your post. except for this part.
the right of people to protest the war is exactly what we say we are fighting for (after the rationale for war magically morphed from Saddam is a threat/Saddam is a threat because he has WMDs/we want to bring democracy to Iraq) and for you to criticize people for exercising their rights and thereby demonstrating not just the right to their opinions but the vibrancy of this democracy as some sort of fifth column is anti-American at it's core. for you to say that protestors are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for you to say that Bin Laden looks at protestors and views each of them as a victory ... well, that is the jihadist mindset, and it's ironic for you to apply it to your own worldview since it seems as if THAT is evidence of the terrorists "winning." we'll win in the greater struggle against radical Islamism because we hold onto our ideals, because we do have better ideas, because our way of life is simply better than religious totalitarianism, and protest is a crucial part of what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society: alert, aware, informed, and always, always questioning.
i am proud that we did not put Moussaoui to death. i am proud that the lowest of the low, the worst of the worst, still gets a fair trial and due process. i am glad that there are still some Republicans (like McCain) who do not endorse torture like the Bushies. i am proud that the American people, and especially anti-war protestors like myself, are out there in the streets with a comprehensive understanding of the situation and understand that protesting against a war isn't cheering for the enemy, it isn't protesting against the troops, that it is an act of love for the country, that criticism is belief that the country can yet meet its ideals, and that, for all the awfulness that has happened, we will win because we deserve to win because a liberal democracy really is the best system we have.
and your comments above are abusive in the extreme to the very foundations of liberal democracy.
victory for "the enemy" will not be won in regular combat terms, you are correct. it will be won the way in which all occupations are won: thorugh time. unwanted occupations are destined to fail, especially in this region of the world. we're going to see a continuing slow, steady trickle of dead bodies (actually, we won't see them, since coffins are hidden by the military) out of Iraq with little measurable progress. so many dead, so much spent, so little accomplished, and such a potentially worthy mission squandered by a president who scheduled a war on an election timetable and a defense secretary who wanted to make some sort of ideological point that 150,000 troops were enough to occupy a region of 20 million people imbued with ethnic hatred that goes back thousands of years.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
Powell is a very good, loyal soldier, and picks his words very carefully.
Similar threads
- Sticky
