Skip to main content

(From the diaries -- Plutonium Page. Also note that 75 U.S. troops have died since Bush went on vacation.)

New AP-Ipsos Poll released today, 1,001 respondents, 3% margin of error.  Very, very interesting results on Iraq and more.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq? (IF APPROVE/DISAPPROVE, ASK:) Is that strongly or somewhat?(Results from June 2005 in parentheses)

--Strongly approve, 20 percent (26)

--Somewhat approve, 16 percent (15)

--Somewhat disapprove, 13 percent (11)

--Strongly disapprove, 45 percent (45)

--Not sure, 5 percent (3)

TOTAL APPROVE -- 37 percent (41)

TOTAL DISAPPROVE -- 58 percent (56)

Ouch.  The real kick to Bush's groin (and that of all the other wingnuts fomenting for deportation of dissenters) below the fold.

2. All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the United States ...

(Results from June 2005 in parentheses)

--Made the right decision in going to war in Iraq, 43 percent (42)

--Made a mistake in going to war in Iraq, 53 percent (53)

--Not sure, 4 percent (5)

That metric is pretty stable, most think Iraq was a mistake.  We should not feel alone here.  


3. How likely is it that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq? Is it ...

(Results from February 2005 in parentheses)

--Very likely, 11 percent (10)

--Somewhat likely, 40 percent (41)

--Not too likely, 30 percent (31)

--Not at all likely, 16 percent (16)

--Not sure, 3 percent (2)

A close call here.  I'm not sure where the "likely" folks are getting their information but at least they are optomistic.


4. Has the military action in Iraq ...

(Results from April 2004 in parentheses)

--Increased the threat of terrorism in the world, 50 percent (47)

--Decreased the threat of terrorism in the world, 20 percent (25 percent)

--Had no effect on the threat of terrorism, 28 percent (25 percent)

--Not sure, 3 percent (3 percent)

So much for the perceived strength of Bush.  Dems need to pull a Rove and attack Bush's traditional foundation of "keeping America safe."


5. Should the United States keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or should the United States bring its troops home from Iraq immediately?

(Results from June 2005 in parentheses)

--Keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, 60 percent (59)

--Bring its troops home from Iraq immediately, 37 percent (37)

--Not sure, 3 percent (4)

Reflects something of the debate ongoing here about staying or pulling out.  Looks like most Americans have embraced the Pottery Barn doctrine.

Here's the kick to Bush's groin and to the groin of all those wingnuts who want to call dissenters treasonous traitors.


6. Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?

--Yes, 87 percent

--No, 12 percent

--Not sure, 1 percent

In other words, fuck you Limbaugh.

This is perhaps the saddest question of all...


7. Do you have a friend, colleague or family member who has served in the military effort in Iraq at any time since March 2003?

--Yes, 54 percent

--No, 45 percent

--Not sure, 1 percent

The majority of Americans now know someone who has been to Iraq.  This is undoubtedly the Vietnam of the current era.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:42 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  8. Are you aware of the $9bil missing in iraq? (4.00)
    yes-15%
    no-70%
    what?15%

    "It's ok to be stupid if everybody else is."-Ms. Lady Evans by Redd Kross

    by mkf on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:29:26 AM PDT

    •  A 4... (4.00)
      ...for both the posting AND the Red Kross reference.

      --Anne ** ** ** ** ** ** "Hyena crawls on his belly out. The town is safe again tonight." --jms

      by asskicking annie on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:42:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I second the 4 for the Redd Kross reference (none)
    •  Ooh, ooh! (4.00)
      I have a Redd Kross story! So I went to see Redd Kross at Staches' in Columbus, OH (this was late 80's). I was wearing this sleeveless "dress" that used to be part of a pantsuit (I had sewn up the slits on the sides somewhat). It was yellow, and had little stick-figure-type people all over it holding hands, and the word "LOVE".

      Anyway, after the show the band wanted to buy it, but I wouldn't sell because I didn't have anything else to wear!

      (sorry, totally off thread topic, but I don't get to tell this story to people who actually know who Redd Kross is. I still have their first 3 records--yeah, on vinyl)

      "I must admit that I don't see a bright tomorrow; still, I must also confess that my hopes are fairly high"--Ass Ponys, "Fighter Pilot"

      by oxymoron on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:24:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  mkf... (4.00)
      Iraq is a big funnel from the U.S. Treasury to Bush/Cheney & Co. contractors/donors.  This war is the biggest boondoggle in the history of the world, and these funds are going to be used to finance Bushco for the next 50 years.

      p.s. was this question asked of respondents in this or another poll (or was this a highly creative way of introducing this point)?

      •  sorta creative-It was not asked (none)
        that's why I put the what comment so folks would not be confused. I should have made it clear. sorry:)

        "It's ok to be stupid if everybody else is."-Ms. Lady Evans by Redd Kross

        by mkf on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:12:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you can stop now. (none)
          Ignore knowthings, OK. I will report him for rating abuse. He had demonstrated that he is culpable by stalking you and handing out troll ratings. I gave him a chance earlier tonight and this is yours. If he makes a statement that is truly unproductive, like jumping your case, you are right to rate it a 1. Just don't go slalking him just to downrate him. I actually gave you both 1's from an exchange you had earlier tonight. I think you have settled in as a community member in the last week and am glad you did. Buck up, ignore those who are persecuting you, and enjoy yourself.

          It"s about the accountability, stupid.

          by Tomtech on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:55:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

            •  That's KO (none)
              not mfk. You appear to be on a rampge against one user who wronged you. A man would get over it.

              It"s about the accountability, stupid.

              by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 07:57:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  he didn't just wrong me (none)
                go check the records on this twit. He's done nothing but attack people since he's been here

                I'm on a rampage against a troll who bitchs about people not enforcing the rules, and then abuses anybody who disagrees with him

                •  I have followed his record. (none)
                  He is learning to be a constructive member of the community, while you are demanding an apology, unlike the others who were wronged. Don't be a Bush, even if you thought the war was worth it, can't you see it ain't worth it now.

                  It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                  by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 05:42:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you CAN'T follow his record (none)
                    he would have over 100 more hidden comments if he had not deleted those diaries

                    respected people like eternal hope and others were treated to profanity laced screeds for offering good advice

                    and that was in a diary written AFTER I found out about his trolldom

                    this is classic troll behavior. they kiss ass to some people, post smarmy comments about praying for somebody to collect mojo, and then they go around writing troll droppings

                    this asshat figured out that he could just delete the record if he confines his troll activities to his own diaries

                    he lied about his ratings behavior, and when he was caught defending his abuse in the same thread, he deleted the threads

                    he then proceeded to claim that "somebody" had coopted his user id and was responsible for the ratings abuse and the posts defending them

                    this little fucker will go off again any day now, and I'll make sure you see it, OK

                    •  I was involved in those diaries. (none)
                      I know what he did. He made some mistakes last week. If he makes a trollish comment I will rate it as such. If he makes a comment that is not trollish and you rate it a troll you are violating community standards and that would be just cause for banning. Stop the personal attacks. RATE THE COMMENTS, NOT THE PERSON. HE HAS LEARNED FROM HIS MISTAKES, YOU HAVE NOT. Her is an example of ratings abuse, and stalking.
                      Praying for you and everyone there today. (3.71 / 14)
                      That was for Cindy and you rated it a troll. He may be still lying about the number of diaries he deleted. I know of two, and the excuse that he was asked to delete it doesn't fly because he was asked early in the thread, by me, to delete it. When it got almost 300 comments it should have stayed.

                      It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                      by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 09:45:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  asdf (none)
                        The diary was over 400 comments at the end and the last one which was posted the following day was by me....asking him to apologize to everyone he had insulted....which he has not done.

                        Every post he has made regarding this issue has included a lie either defending his own vile behaviour with a lie or attacking someone else's version of things with a lie.   Those posts are rated 0 by me and justly so.   That is not rating the poster....that is rating the comment full of lies and bullshit.   If someone wants to lie to me then they'll get called out for being a "lying jackass" whether you think it deserves a 0 or not.

                        If you were there in the diary (which I don't dispute now that you've said so) offering reasonable and friendly advice to MFK....then you're also aware that dozens of people, including myself, went to great lengths to do the same.   What was received in response to the helpful advice was a torrent of insults in a fit of blind rage.   There has not been a single thing specifically apologized for.

                        His claim that he took it down due to being asked was a lie as once it was past the 200 comment or so mark there ended up being more comments demanding that he not delete it (including the last comment in the diary pre-deletion, mine) than there were asking to delete it....by a longshot.   That's yet another lie.

                        MFK makes a habit out of lying which I would be fine with as he is a recognized and proven liar at this point.....but the fact that he has yet to apologize for the vile words he spewed means more to me.

              •  You haven't the slightest clue (none)
                what you're talking about.

                If you had been a part of the over 400 comments in the diaries he has since deleted from his history in which he flamed, lied about, and cussed out to an extreme degree hundreds of users on this site then you would.

                But you don't.

                MFK should be deleted from this site.  Period.

                •  I was a major part of it. (none)
                  I posted at least ten comments, mostly showing mfk where he was fucking up. He has changed his tune since then and deserves a second chance.

                  It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                  by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 05:37:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the song remains the same (none)
                    what did his attacks on Janice Joplin bring to the discussion

                    nothing but dissention

                    by their fruits shall you know they

                    he's STILL calling others liars

                    6 diarys?! (0.00 / 4)

                    I have deleted 2 posts. Stop lying. Both I have deleted I was asked to.

                    "It's ok to be stupid if everybody else is."-Ms. Lady Evans by Redd Kross

                    by mkf on Sat Aug 27th, 2005 at 04:07:06 PDT

                    see for yourself

                    can you admit that this "person" has a bad habit of accusing people of lying ???

                    tlh lib was the one who proved fuckface's lies in the diary you read, and he doesn't forget what happened there

                    so where is this improvment you allude to ???

                    •  LOL (4.00)
                      I guess Tom Tech got the apology that the rest of us are still waiting on.  That must explain the 0's he's given me tonight for calling out MFK for continuing to refuse to apologize to the 100+ people he personally insulted in his vile fit of rage lol.
                      •  Tomtech is giving you zeros ??? (none)
                        •  Yes but (none)
                          I'm sure they were for the fact that I called MFK a lying jackass and a dumbass lol.   I'm surprised he didn't 0 the lying sack of shit remark I made.   Personally I woulda nailed that one before the others lol.
                          •  I rated him (none)
                            what I thought his comments deserved. There's a thought. How can anyone troll rate a comment that says he is praying for everyone at Camo Casey?

                            It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                            by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 10:41:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've said it before (none)
                            THAT IS WHAT TROLLS DO

                            they post smary dreck to gain sympathy and mojo

                            I call it a "Brown Noser Special"

                            it is preying on the good intentions of others, and cheezing off the good will extended to a sympathetic figure here

                            the trolls just post a prayer, or a comment saying "I feel your pain" with the sole intention of gaining a few allies or mojo

                            it's a fucking con job

                            and I can't see why you would fall for it

                          •  Rate the comment, not the person. (none)
                            That's the difference between ratings use and abuse. If he starts using his T.U. status to unjustly troll rate you, or others, call him out or send Kos an E-mail.

                            It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                            by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 10:55:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've already recieved a few zeros from him (none)
                            oh well, that is the life of a flame warrior

                            and I already HAVE called him out

                            all of my posts in his screed were especially designed to piss on his diary

                            I don't go whining to KOS with my problems, and unless there is a threat of physical violence, i don't bother Armando or the othr front pagers

                            this is what I do. I find trolls and I flame them. If it wasn't a troll, we wouldn't be here

                            I do this so that you and other respected diarists can post without being attacked by these asshats. If you just stand down, we'll flame this motherfucker out of here in a few days

                            he can make a new User ID and come back. This isn't life or death here

                            if he does come back, I bet ya I can spot him again. I've got his posting profile pretty much memorized by now

                            once again, LET THIS TROLL DIE, please

                          •  Looks like you may be right. (none)
                            when you said:
                            all of my posts in his screed were especially designed to piss on his diary
                            and from the FAQ:
                            trolls: people who post inflammatory articles just to get an inflamed response.
                            I found 4 comments he troll rated included:
                            it's a troll (2.71 / 7)
                            it posted 2 troll diaries in 24 hours, and now its trying to kiss ass...the little twit
                            unfortunatly, the troll...little troll muther f___,...the little prick
                            You have succesfuly become what you are fighting. That is the problem with wars. There were two other comments which would qualify as collateral dammage.

                            It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                            by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 11:42:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I treated his diary as GBCW (none)
                            I disrespected it just as I would any other troll droppings. I've already ponted out that I was after this troll BEFORE he wrote the screed

                            you keep on bitching at my actions, but did you ever stop to think if your own actions are really worth it ???

                            you're troll rating tlh lib, you're flaming eternal hope (for what I have NO idea). so you have actually allowed the troll to extend the war, and you're helping a known liar

                            How could we corupt you so ??? are WE disrupting you or disturbing you that much ???

                            why the sudden love for this foul mouthed lying piece of shit ???

                            I've had conversations with Armando and others about my flaming practices, and I've flamed trolls for Armando, even after Armando had forgiven the troll (and some people think that could never have happened)

                            I don't do much to contribute to this site, but my troll hunting skills have been useful in the past. I'm really good at this. If this wasn't a troll, I would have stopped by know. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck last night ya know

                            I am a mighty troll hunter

                            what's your excuse ???

                          •  I just love a good argument (none)
                            And I love the hypocracy
                            why the sudden love for this foul mouthed lying piece of shit
                            I love all creatures, someone suggested that idea a while back and I thought it was a great idea.

                            It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                            by Tomtech on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 12:00:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are absolutely correct (4.00)
                            He has written diaries that were outrageously slanderous and full of vile insults directed right at specific members of this community.

                            They were deleted erasing any record of him having done so along with his hundred or so vulgar responses to our reasoned advice and his 400+ zeros.

                            He then goes and posts bullshit to garner 4's.

                            Scoop is set to automatically ban somebody at a certain level of 0's.  What he is doing is ratings abuse in reverse by beating the system in order to stay a member.

                      •  I gave you one zero (none)
                        for a thoughtful comment titled "Hey Dumbass."

                        The boy made some mistakes, he has not apologized to me, but he has, on at least one occasion apologized, generally. I didn't understand why it was posted where it was. But that is not the point. He is trying to do better. I have followed this flamewar from the start and see no effort on your or knowthings part to end it. I think a public appology before the whole community will only drive your ego's and not be productive to the site. Anyone who read the deleted diaries know you all were exonerated and he was in the wrong. All I am suggesting is that you all bring the troops home and see if this results in a civil war. If he starts acting like a troll again he will be found out, if not he will become a community member. GIVE HIM SOME SLACK and he may hang himself, but I don't think so.

                        It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                        by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 10:39:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  He has a bad habbit! (none)
                      Of accusing you. He also is overly defensive and that is what started the whole thing. His foul mouthed comments when he first started were deservedly trolled into hidden comments and then someone told him the three accused were responsible and he went defensive and wrote two diries which were deleted. One did get in the range of 400 comments. I, among others, asked him to delete the diary where I explained his error and defended the threesome. I found I was wrong because you had actually been using ratings abuse to troll rate non abusive comments. I did not discover this untill I looked into the comments that had not been hidden. Now you are stalking him. How can you troll rate a comment where he say's he is praying for Cindy and everyone else at Camp Casey.

                      It"s about the accountability, stupid.

                      by Tomtech on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 10:51:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  bullshit (2.00)
                        I could post you a time line of how it went down

                        Hollywoodoz ran afoul of this twit in the twit's first diary, and sallycat was defending oz when this twit launched a screed against her

                        Hollywoodoz realized that the accusation oz was making was inaccurate, AND OZ APOLOGIZED TO FUCKFACE FOR IT

                        then I found dickweed in a diary that was about enforcing the rules regarding duplicate diaries, and I tried NICELY to point out how bad that could turn out

                        I was informed that this twit doesn't respect his grandmother, even if she is older than him, and that I could just fuck off

                        a whole pack of TUs decended upon him, and we troll rated all of his comments off the board

                        he then deleted all the evidence he could, and wrote a screed accusing me and others of lying about him and conspiring with three people I barely know

                        you saw how that diary turned out

                        there is some evidence that there WAS a poster with a similar name that actually made the comments that the twit was accused of making, and I'm still looking for that guy

                        but fuckface's screed against Hollywoodoz was totally uncalled for. Oz apologized, and sallycat, who just defended oz against the twit's attack should have been recognized as being included within oz's apology

                        my case against this twit is totally seperate from that incident, and totally related to the "rules" diary

                        what you saw in the attack diary was similar to the "rules" diary in that the twit attacked ANYBODY who tried to talk sense into him

                        the attack diary was a repeat preformance, but I was planning to troll rate anything fuckface BEFORE I knew about his opus was posted

                        let this fucking troll die, dude, he isn't worth your time or your reputation. What has fuckface ever done for you ???

          •  Thanks. (none)

            "It's ok to be stupid if everybody else is."-Ms. Lady Evans by Redd Kross

            by mkf on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 12:12:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Replying to the missing 9B (none)
      That is pretty sad, 70% of americans are being ripped off and didn't know or didn't care.  That is sad.
  •  I think that rather than concern in the altruistic (none)
    way, about the war like concern for what we are doing to Iraq, the number of Iraqis killed, the actual number of Americans being killed and wounded, etc.,people are turning against it because in the back of their minds, they are fearful that there will be a draft and it will actually enter their personal lives for the first time in a big way.
    •  I think there is also (4.00)
      a direct relationship between the percentage answering yes to the last question and the realization that this war has real costs attached to it.

      Sell your cleverness; buy bewilderment.

      by lapin on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:33:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  well, their fears about a draft, I think are (none)
      largely unfounded.

      The Regime already has a strategy here: I call it "outsourcing citizenship", based on a recent NYT article
      "Swift Road for U.S. Citizen Soldiers Already Fighting in Iraq" (august 9, 05)

      "Since last year, teams of immigration officers have been jetting to military bases around the world to do interviews and carry out naturalization ceremonies.

      20,000 military service members who have become American citizens since July 2002, many of whom applied under a fast-track process approved by President Bush in 2003 and enacted in October 2004. Under the new rules, people in the military can become citizens without paying the customary $320 application fee or having to be in the United States for an interview with immigration officials and naturalization proceedings.

      The president also made thousands of service members immediately eligible for citizenship by not requiring them to meet a minimum residency threshold, as civilians applying to be citizens must do, although they must still be legal residents of the United States.

      [snip]

      The new citizenship laws have offered a powerful tool to recruiters at a time when the military is struggling to meet its monthly enlistment quotas. The armed forces now have at least 27,000 members who do not have United States citizenship."

      These are the "jobs" Bush is referring to when he  says

      "some of the jobs being generated in America's growing economy are jobs American citizens are not filling. Yet these jobs represent a tremendous opportunity for workers from abroad who want to work and fulfill their duties as a husband or a wife, a son or a daughter." (Shrub, 2004)

      •  Illegal Aliens Next? n/t (none)
        •  Rember Starship Troopers? (none)
          Service brings Citizenship.

          "I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797.

          by Heartcutter on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:31:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  BRILLIANT! (none)
            I'm so glad you referred to that great movie. One of the great left-wing polemics you're going to find in the popular arts, and cultural snobbery or misinformation prevents the people who would most enjoy it from seeing it.

            I saw it a second time recently, after 9-11, and was amazed at all the parallels.

            •  Too bad (none)
              the acting blew.

              Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

              by GTPinNJ on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:58:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dude, it was all about Dina Meyers (none)
                Dizzy Flores.  She was the hotness.  

                Ratcheck.  He was the badassness.

                Doogie Howser.  He was the gothness.

                Rico and Carmen.  Meh, not so much.

                "I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797.

                by Heartcutter on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:03:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Gotta Disagree with you... (none)
              True, the movie tries -- I'm not sure it succeeds -- in undermining the rightwing ideology of the (far, far better) Robert Heinlein novel it was adapted from. But, unless I'm forgetting something, the result is just sort of nihilistic, not left wing in any coherent way.

              And, yeah, the acting sucked, though that was sort of on purpose, but in this case it was no excuse. If you're looking for snarky political commentary Voerhoeven's "Robocop" is a milliion times better. It's politics, however, are sort of have my cake and eat it too combination of law-and-order conservatism and leftish satire on modern day business.

              "The days of me not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

              by LABobsterofAnaheim on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:51:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Left wing? (none)
              I guess since I read the book and did not see the movie I find the idea of Starship Troopers being left-wing as laughable to the extreme.

              Starship Troopers (the novel) is essentially advocacy for the "strict father" form of parenting and government. While I can agree with parts of it (the military itself was a meritocracy, for one thing, and service was required for Citizenship) there was just too much authoritarianism for me to be comfortable with it.

              Not to say I didn't enjoy reading the book. I did. There's a reason why it's a classic of science fiction. However, I wouldn't want to live in a society patterned that way.

              Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.

              by admiralh on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 11:10:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Marine Command College Reading List (none)
                I have a friend who is a retired Marine Lt. Colonel.

                During a discussion about "why is the military so pro-Republican," I ended up recommending this book to him.  He said he had already read it, because it was on the required reading list for the USMC Command College.

                (BTW, he liked the book.  And he's a hard-core Republican.)

              •  That's why the movie is great. (none)

                The movie is fantastically fun because it takes them right-wing bullshit and amps it up to the point that it turns into parody. The scary thing is that a lot of people I've watched it with don't even recognize the fact that it's parody, and see it as a typical kill-em-all Rambo-style action movie.
                •  i know... (none)
                  i felt like i was on crazy pills when i walked out the movie (the first of 5 (five) times i saw it in the theater, by far the most i've ever done) and no one else got the joke.  i was blown away and laughed like crazy.  that scene where the mother is stepping on the cockroaches and hysterically laughing, while the soudtrack intones "See, these people are doing their part."  man that's good stuff.
                •  I don't know that Heinlein (none)
                  Was really that right-wing. His "future history" has America becoming a right-wing religious dictatorship, the society in Starship Troopers is created by the soldiers as a reaction to this. I think the theory was that so many people don't vote because they aren't really participating. By making your vote cost something, you value it more and actually think about it. None of this is compulsory, it's just that rights come with a price.
                  I think the reason the movie doesn't turn into as big a joke as some other Verhoven projects is that Heinlein was such a brilliant writer, you can't tell if he's advocating or warning or both...
            •  Great Book - Lame Movie n/t (none)
          •  Why not? The Romans did it too... n/t (none)

            "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." -Karl Marx

            by Lainie on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:58:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Any Vonnegut fans? (none)
            Sirens of Titan, Cats Craddle, Slaughter House Five to name a few.  Great mix of sci fi, political commentary and just flat out weirdness/wackyness.  
        •  It's not like we haven't done it before (none)
          I can totally see the Bush admin using this as a way to naturalize Illegal immigrants.  

          It's win/win as far as they're concerned as they get recruits to fight their war, and a way to "legalize" all the cheap labor after they're done with them.

          •  it's more insidious than that even (none)
            note in the NYT article the pts about waiving residency requirements for this.

            I also recall a NYT article about them recruiting in 3rd Wrld countries--unfortunately lost track of that.

            My sense is that they are actually going into these places and recruiting immigrants from 3rd World countries, many of whom would be more than willing to risk death for a few hundred bucks and a shot at the "american dream"--

            So it's not just about "taking care" of illegal aliens here--they have a whole world full of starving third worlders who'd be happy to take care of the draft issue for them.

            What a nightmare. Can someone wake me up when it's over.

      •  that is one source but it won't be enough. (none)
        and the romans tried the same thing. it didn't work out too well for them as i recall.
    •  Yeah, (none)
      the neanderthalcon spin regarding the (at least American) casualties is that 1900 is much, much, much less than Vietnam, let alone the World Wars.

      I think even that misses the gratuitous casualties of innocent Iraq civilians, although that's been "justified" by saying that radical Islam has infected the general population of Iraq civilians.

      As for the 87%-12%, given that there is (technically) free speech in this country did you honestly expect anything different?  It is just another case where those numbers wouldn't be reflected in an anonymous election, though, like with gay marriage.

      "But the people of America have spoken, and they're saying they want four more years of Douchebag!!" -Family Guy Movie

      by BlueEngineerInOhio on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:16:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Much of it is altruistic (4.00)
      Despite what the Randroids claim, altruism is widespread and deep. I have no fear of a draft, yet I nonetheless am going to Crawford this afternoon because I believe it is the right thing to do. I oppose unjustly raining death upon other people whether or not I personally will suffer any consequences from it or not.

      Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.

      by JamesC on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:20:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmm. Excuse me, Mr. Rumsfeld. (none)
    Who are the "dead-enders" in America?

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard

    by illinifan17 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:30:40 AM PDT

  •  Notice, there's no grey area (4.00)
    It's either stay until stabilized or leave immediately.

    WOuld you stay until stabilized if it took ten years?  Five?  A year?  A year with double the casualties?

    It's also amazing that only 20 percent of americans buy that this war decreased the threat of terrorism.  That dog won't hunt no more.

    The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use JFK

    by Responsible on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:37:38 AM PDT

    •  And... (4.00)
      no definition of "stabilized".  What the hell does that even mean?  Does that mean fewer attacks per day?  Does it mean no attacks per day?  Does it mean a steady level of attacks per day?  Is it a political measurement?  Does it mean an elected government operating under a Constitution is in power?  Does it have to do with reconstruction?  The flow of oil?

      And frankly, if the country is "stabilized" under any definition on the day we leave, who's to say that it will stay that way the day after?  I find these polls to be stupid and useless on vague questions like that since everyone obviously has their own definition of what "stabilized" means.

      Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

      by GTPinNJ on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:50:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Typical Terrible Question (4.00)
      There is a whole science of public opinion research, and questions like this just make the real experts roll their eyes and toss up their hands in despair.

      First off, there is a place for forced-choice questions, of course. But it's not front-and-center. First you need to get a sense of the diversity of opinion, then you look at how people will break if forced to make a black-and-white choice, which is sometimes necessary.  In most cases, of course, it is not. Usually there is plenty of policy nuance available.

      Second, as noted "stabilized" is an utterly meaningless term, an inkblot that can be just about anything.  This sort of option for this question  appeals to desperate hopes as well as hardline obstinancy.  It is, quite simply, a testing of Bush's propaganda frame, nothing more.

      Third, the lack of a time frame reinforces all the above.  

      Fourth, the lack of reference to the cost in blood and treasure doubly reinforces all the above.

      Get the picture?

    •  London bombings (none)
      I would love to see an analysis of the "war decreased the threat of terrorism" from before and after the London bombings. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a major tipping point.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - FDR

      by Vitarai on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:19:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because it hasn't happened here yet (none)
        ...that's the only reason that 20% who thinks we're "safer" exists.  

        They can still point to the fact that there hasn't been another 911.

        IMHO, that's the only reason we're not bombing Iran right now - the Bushco cabal can't reasonably "allow" even a "little" terrorist attack here to create a rally 'round your President fervor as after 911 - because it will very clearly come back at him, that HE hasn't kept America safe.  

        His loss in credibility with the American people is a very very good thing - it's keeping the neocons in some modicum of check.

        "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by hopesprings on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:25:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership (4.00)
    is missing a huge opportunity to be on the right side of this issue, for once.  And their approval ratings aren't any better than Bush's.

    Nevertheless, I'm glad there are still some people in America who didn't sleep through their 8th grade civics classes.  The stifling of dissent will not stand, man.

    •  Allergic to ideology (4.00)
      Far too much of the Democratic leadership is allergic to taking any kind of principled stance. Principle is what gets people energized, and that energy is infectious. People will stand by you when they believe you are taking a stand based upon righteousness and the good. When you take a stand based upon polls it is difficult to be genuine, and in the long run it is impossible.

      This is why you see such lackluster support from the grassroots for people like Sen. Clinton. While she is respected, she is not loved, and for that she and the other members of the DLC have only themselves to blame.

      Conversely, Sen. Feingold and Gen. Clark are widely supported among the grassroots because their principles are genuine, and there is no doubting that. They show time and time again their dedication to truth, and do not capitalize upon flash-in-the-pan political issues such as the recent controversy over Grand Theft Auto.

      Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.

      by JamesC on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:26:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Was just going to say this (none)
      This is a GOLDEN opportunity for the Dems and they may piss it away. Yes, I know there's only so much they can do legislatively, but can they not even speak with a clear, unified message? I feel like screaming!
      •  What makes me even more perplexed (none)

        Is the passivity about the Democrats' silence around here.  People just seem to accept it and think that its ok.  I am beyond mystified but also feeling sad and cynical about what we can expect.  No one here wants to confront the issue so here we sit, pretending that we actually have leaders who are leading by speaking forcefully and with a vision of what the Democrats stand for.  Instead, we get - nothing -- silence.  It seems almost creepy to be talking about blind support of Bush while we accept poor leadership from the Dems with equally blind support.

        I am not going to stay quiet about it though.  Someone has to say that the emperor has no clothes!

        Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:07:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wonder (none)
    when Gallup will follow the trend.   3 polls in a row all show the same thing. Quack, Quack, Quack. And a hearty Fuck You to Mark Williams and Melanie Morgan.

    "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around!"

    by demkat620 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:44:54 AM PDT

  •  I know this is supposed... (4.00)
    ...to be good news, but what jumps out at me most is that 12% of AMERICANS believe dissenters should put up and shut up.

    That's more than one in ten people who lack the most fundamental understanding of civil rights.  More than one in ten people willing to sacrifice the First Amendment so Dear Leader can play boom-boom wherever he pleases.  What's more, you've got to assume the vast majority of these respondents are Republicans, which means that roughly one in five Republicans feels this way.

    These fuckwits should surrender their voter cards.

    "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark

    by The Termite on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:45:43 AM PDT

    •  Every society has its fringe nuts (none)
      I'm glad its only 12%.  I hope AP asks this question again over a series of months to see if this number is stable, because my faulty intuition was telling me that more than 12% were of the Rush Limbaugh brigades.  Good to know that Limbaugh is the marginal one.

      Sell your cleverness; buy bewilderment.

      by lapin on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:49:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  > 10% is not "fringe" (4.00)
        That's a voting bloc.  As a population it translates to a bigger group than soccer moms.

        And 20% (within the Republican party) is certainly not fringe."  It may not be their base, but 1 in 5 of those bastards wants to muzzle YOU.

        "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark

        by The Termite on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:11:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Twelve Tribes (4.00)
          According to John Green's research on politics and religions identity, the Religious Right comprises approximately 12.6% of the electorate.

          Looks like we've found them.

          The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. -- Hubert H. Humphrey

          by KTinOhio on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:35:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You're right to be alarmed. However.... (4.00)
          This number, if memory serves, is consistent with a lot of polls where they ask people about dissent in general, absent any particular issue. A pathetically large (but thank God substantially minority) segment of our popular does not, in fact, support/understand the Bill of Rights.

          Of course, the question doesn't ask whether dissenters should be jailed, just whether it's acceptable. That's a bit different. For example, I don't think it's acceptable to be a racist, but that doesn't mean I believe they should be legally sanctioned in some way. (I'm one of those "Nazis can march in Skokie" First Amendment "absolutist" types.)

          "The days of me not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

          by LABobsterofAnaheim on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 11:18:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The liberal equivalent (none)
          Considering all the people who have claimed that Pat Robertson should be arrested, or the FCC should fine him, or whatever, this can't be described as purely a "right wing" problem.

          Too many people on both sides of the isle are willing to betray the funamental principles of this country when it serves their agenda.

          Pat Robertson is disgusting.  He's an evil person.  But claiming that he should be locked up, or that he should be subect to fines for stating his opinion makes me sick.  Boycott the channels that broadcast his filth, use your right to speak out against his hatred, but don't sick the government on him.

          On the other hand, I would expect (as has been mentioned by others) that the 10% who disapprove of the anti-war protesters don't all believe they should be fined or locked up.

          I'm not trying to defend people who believe we shouldn't protest, merely trying to point out that it's a problem associated with extremists, not just right wing extremists.

          •  there is a difference between PROTESTING (none)
            and essentially making death threats or at the very least advocating murder of anyone, but in this case the legitimately elected leader of a sovereign democratic nation (i.e. NOT a "strong-arm dictator")

            I'm not an attorney, so I won't go out on a limb here, but, as soon as Robertson made the statement, what came to my mind was, hmmm. Doesn't this constitute a "making terroristic threats" (and that's a crime that's been on the books for a hell of a lot longer than the Patriot Act).

            It's not clear to me whether his statements actually fit that category, but sounds to me like they do.

            •  I agree they are different (none)
              But, if you listen to what Robertson said, he didn't make a direct threat against Hugo Chavez.  He advocated for a specific policy change by our government.  It was a disgusting and probably illegal policy he was advocating, but it was still essentially a policy change.  He didn't say that he was going to kill Chavez.  He didn't encourage his listeners to kill Chavez.  He said our government should assassinate Chavez.

              There is no way that Pat Robertson's comments come anywhere near the legal standards for not being protected by the First Ammendment.  (I am not a lawyer, but ever since the "Communications Decency Act" one of my hobbies is following Supreme Court cases on First Ammendment law.)

              And personally, I hope that no-one ever changes our laws to make what he said illegal.  Our First Ammendment Rights have already been trampled during the past five years.  (Six years ago, who would have thought we would have "First Ammendment Zones?"  The whole country should be a First Ammendment Zone!)

              •  Agreed. I hope no one ever changes our (none)
                First Amendment rights either; however,  I wouldn't mind seeing a change in ethics, educational level, and taste so that a psychopath like Robertson (or Bush or John Bolton)  wouldn't have so much as a shot at getting a spot on a late-night QVC ad for a self-cleaning cat litter box.

                The fact that these people have ANY kind of audience is obscene, and a sad index for the fact that, alas, even regime change at home is not going to be enough to again make this country habitable.

    •  Right on.... (4.00)
      I find it alarming that this question,

      6. Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?

      is even a QUESTION. When did that become a QUESTION?

      scarey shit, people.

      •  Apart from little matters like freedom of speech.. (4.00)
        ..it's also scary to think that as president, all you have to do is wage perpetual warfare, and a fairly large contingent of the public thinks you should therefore be immune from dissent.
        •  it also plays into shrub's (none)
          "charm" factor.... middle America loves to live with the illusion that "anyone" can be pres, even someone who could not pass a 3rd grade grammar-, civics-, or geography exam, like most of middle america; course, once you get to be pres, you're above the law and beyond reproach.
        •  Oceania (none)
          has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia...

          9/11 was the Neocons' Reichstag fire. "Patriot Act" = Enabling Act.

          by Bulldawg on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:49:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except when its been at war with Eurasia. (none)
            One way or another, it's always been at war . . .or always WILL be at war.

            I re-read it recently and it gives me chills.

            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

            by RevDeb on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:12:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Eurasia? (none)
              I seem to remember being told that Eurasia has always been our ally.  And when I look it up in the old newspapers, sure enough Eurasia has always been our ally.  (Although I have this nagging memory of hating the Eurasians, but I must be mistaken...)

              There's no way we could have ever been at war with the Eurasians, and allied with someone as totally evil as Saddam... I mean Osama... I mean Eastasia.

        •  that number is dropping like a lead balloon. (none)
    •  Nah. (none)
      Nobody in that 12% really believes what you wrote. They believe in free speech, but have been warped by propaganda to the point that they are equating dissent with the war to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Our dissent is "hurting the troops", and damaging the war effort, so we need to be quiet or more people will die. It's crap, but that's the thought process. I've seen it in action.
      •  I don't see a very sharp... (none)
        ...distinction between the belief I described and the thought process you described.  It still amounts to a willingness to set aside the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.  It is still moronic and it is still as anti-American as it gets.

        "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark

        by The Termite on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:58:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmm. (none)
          I agree with what you're saying. That 12% doesn't fully comprehend the meaning and spirit of the Bill of Rights.

          But there is a big, BIG difference between describing the thought process of the other side as (a) "Throw the dissenters in prison so that Great Leader can kill things," versus (b) "Now is not the time for protests, we need to support the troops, so they can finish the job."

          I'd bet any amount of money that the average viewpoint of that 12% is closer to (b) than (a). That said, both (a) and (b) are still wrong, and anti-American, IMHO. In that I think we agree.

      •  I HATE (4.00)
        that stupid "fire in a crowded theater" analogy.  It only makes sense if there's no fire.  What if someone correctly shouts "Fire!"  That dumbass analogy was one of the worst things that has ever happened to First Amendment jurisprudence.

        Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

        by GTPinNJ on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:58:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  See what I said upthread (none)
      I fear that the 12% is actually on the "low" side, the same way the gay marriage/civil union polls didn't reflect how people voted in the 11 states it was on the ballot in the '04 election.  I wouldn't be surprised to at least see it closer to 25-30%.

      As for the "20% of Republicans" point, it mathematically makes sense but the Repub response would be "OMG, we iz teh ones that believes in pr0tecting teh Constitution and fr33dom uv speech!!11!!11!!"

      "But the people of America have spoken, and they're saying they want four more years of Douchebag!!" -Family Guy Movie

      by BlueEngineerInOhio on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:21:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  High Schoolers and the First Amendment (none)
      A survey of 100,000 high schoolers found that more than 1/3 think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

      Interestingly, among those students who have taken courses dealing with the media or the First Amendment, 87% believe people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions. So, even after having a class that deals specifically with the First Amendment, 13% of high schoolers still think it's not ok to publicly express opposition, which lines up pretty closely with the 12% in the AP poll.  So 1 in 8 Americans simply don't believe in the right to dissent? Would that be true if they were given a different situation, i.e. instead of Iraq the question was about protesting the teaching of evolution in schools or allowing gay marriages.  Would it still be 1 in 8 opposed to public opposition or, would they suddenly discover IOKIYAR

      •  We seriously need (4.00)
        a return to some good old-fashioned high-school civics classes in this country.

        Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

        by saucy monkey on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:58:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why is this a surprise? (none)
        They're HIGH-SCHOOOLERS. The most conservative, let's-not-make-waves people on earth (well, except for middle-schoolers). Anybody different, they try to crush like a bug. I would say they're relating this more to their own experiences than to the country/world at large.

        (I remember high school all too well...)

        "I must admit that I don't see a bright tomorrow; still, I must also confess that my hopes are fairly high"--Ass Ponys, "Fighter Pilot"

        by oxymoron on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:05:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NOT! (none)
          At least not in the early 70's when I was in school.  We were a pretty aware bunch and loved to make waves. We were also involved in local politics - school board, state representatives etc.  

          Guess a lot of us grew up and somehow hatched conservative, conformist children.

          The truth always matters.

          by texasmom on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:46:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  there is a pendulum swing in history. (none)
          we are just now starting the swing back to the other side. our side! it is slow but sure!
      •  Not a surprise (none)
        if we are talking about Lakoff's "strict father" mentality. Those who are hardwired for this  know that there cannot be any room for any kind of dissent. Scary, indeed, but it is there.

        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

        by RevDeb on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:16:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Far Right Radical Fringe (none)
      (i.e., Hardline Facsist / Corporatist / Pro - Police State types) would, I suspect (admittedly with no real evidence whatsoever), have to be at least 10 or 12%.

      Is there any good empirical data out there on this issue?

  •  n/t (4.00)
    6. Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?

    --Yes, 87 percent

    --No, 12 percent

    --Not sure, 1 percent

    Why do 87% of Americans hate America?

    Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

    by GTPinNJ on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:47:06 AM PDT

  •  On the first question, (4.00)
    about approving of Bush's handling of the war:  There has been a consistent 30% who have always "strongly approved" whatever chimpy does.  

    To see that number fall from 26% to 20% is startling.  He's even losing his base.  Duh.

    The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

    by MoronMike on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:47:30 AM PDT

  •  Now, all we have to do (none)
    is wait for the shoddy Dem mo'fuckaz to actually pick up on and make a stink about this. I'm growing real tired of their laziness, when they have the biggest goddamn target painted on the back of this guy. Can there actually be a reason for it? Because if there isn't - we need to reboot this government, as it obviously doesn't meet up with the citizenry at any point.

    I'm hungover, and tired of talking about politics. Sorry there.

    Kerry sucks.

    I'm sorry. :-\

    •  Don't just target Bush (none)
      Target the entire GOP.

      Sell your cleverness; buy bewilderment.

      by lapin on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:50:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  See my comment below (none)
        (or above, however you have your comment settings) about the GOP candidates running in 2006.

        Them government boys had something so damn secret, they had to hide it in the desert sand...

        by Page van der Linden on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:52:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Negative GOP != Positive Dem (none)
        We must also continue to improve our own party's image. No matter how poor the GOP's ratings, it will do us no good if we do not manage to increase our own.

        Down with the DLC!

        Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.

        by JamesC on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:28:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Great sig line (none)

          Bring them home. Now.

          by Anglico on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:52:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Repugs never worried about that (none)
          They attack all the fucking time and what's it gotten them?  A bad image?  No, absolute power over the most powerful nation in the world, i.e., total power over the entire world.  

          IMO the democrats need to rid themselves of their image of being cowardly pussies, because it's the truth.

          "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." -James Madison

          by Subterranean on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 11:07:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not just George Bush... (none)
        It's "George Bush and his enablers in Congress."  Learn it.  Live it.  GWB isn't running for reelection, but every member of the House is up next year, and every member of the Senate is up sometime in the next five years.

        The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. -- Hubert H. Humphrey

        by KTinOhio on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:37:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a bit wordy (none)
          to make a good catchphrase. How about "George Bush and the Republicans"? It's not quite right though, since it seems to imply that Bush isn't a Republican.

          -dms

          •  It sounds like a rock band... (none)
            Paul Revere and the Raiders
            Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons
            Paul McCartney and Wings
            George Bush and the Republicans

            Besides, enough people know that an enabler enables someone to pursue a destructive habit, and this is certainly true in this case.

            The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. -- Hubert H. Humphrey

            by KTinOhio on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 03:32:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Just don't target bush (none)
        Yes, if one goes all of them should go.  
  •  What Limbaugh, et. al., don't get... (4.00)
    Is that the scope of public question is much broader than the families of people who've fallen.  Looking at the casualty statistics (which are staggering), you have to remember that every one of those wounded comes home with a story and perhaps a severely debilitating injury.  That generates, thank God, questions in the people they touch--which may be one of the reasons support has slipped so sharply.

    In terms of the support for free speech--that's very reassuring news, and needs to be shouted from the rooftops.  We are not yet a Stalinist state, no matter how sharply Limbaugh and the other reactionaries have tried to steer us there since 9/11.

    "Patriotism flourishes in the rear echelon."--Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    by Fantomas71 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:50:09 AM PDT

    •  And I seem to remember hearing (none)
      (sorry, no cite) that body armor is saving more lives, but the injuries that occur are worse--also, that people are being saved who might have died from their injuries not so long ago. A lot of the men and women in Iraq are coming home with injuries that will require long-term care and rehab.

      And did anyone hear the interview on Fresh Air of the woman who just wrote a memoir of her time serving in Iraq? Her husband was very severely wounded in the war, and she says that immediate care was great, but now they're having a hard time getting what he needs.

      She also talked about being present at an interrogation where she was asked to say "sexually humiliating" things to a prisoner in Arabic in an attempt to "soften him up" and make him more likely to talk.

      "I must admit that I don't see a bright tomorrow; still, I must also confess that my hopes are fairly high"--Ass Ponys, "Fighter Pilot"

      by oxymoron on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:50:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sadly (4.00)
    I am almost ambivalent about these sinking poll numbers at this point because on the one hand, it is good to see that people are finally seeing through the smokescreen of this whole administration, but the damage is sooooo done already, and not just in the area of Iraq/Middle East/foreign policy.  The effects of this presidency will be felt for decades, and who knows how much more damage could be inflicted in three more years.  

    Buyer's remorse from Repubicans is no consolation these days.  

    Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

    by Pennsylvanian on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:50:36 AM PDT

    •  I just keep hoping (4.00)
      that Bush's stubborn support for the Iraq war will taint the GOP asshats running in 2006.

      Them government boys had something so damn secret, they had to hide it in the desert sand...

      by Page van der Linden on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:51:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sadly but truly, (4.00)
      Dems have to change the frame from "exit strategy" to "incompetent entrance strategy."

      Operation Shifting Noble Cause is about to go into high gear, and we should put on the brakes.

      The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

      by MoronMike on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:55:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Suggested talking points: (4.00)
        -Bush has us jump out of the plane without a parachute, now we have to figure out how we're gonna land.
        -Bush keeps telling us to stay the course, but what if it's the wrong course?
        -Bush has put us in a position where creating an Islamic theocracy in Iraq is a good outcome.
        -Bush had years to plan for the occupation of Iraq, and this is what he came up with?
      •  Agree 99% (none)
        but think it should be followed up with some sort of proactive solution.

        Personally, I would prefer if it weren't immediate withdrawal or an arbitrary deadline, but if it is, so be it. While I think 'Bush is an incompetent' is an accurate statement, he's no longer running for office. Voters need a reason to vote Democratic. The other guy sucks didn't work when the other guy was running.

        •  The problem with this, (none)
          at least in regards to Iraq, is that there really isn't a solution anymore. Between the secular Sunnis, religous Shiites, and "can we just have our own country now" Kurds, there is more than enough to insure any constitution will be a failure. Foreign jihadists and Chalabi's gang of weenies don't help either.

          It's very difficult to present a solution to a problem when there really isn't one. Heck, Bush practically ran on that idea in '04.

          "George Bush has so thoroughly screwed up Iraq that John Kerry has no idea how to fix it. In a time of war, do you really want a leader who has no idea how to win? Vote Bush."

    •  These numbers (none)
      do not allow an invasion of Iran, and for that I'm extremely grateful. On bad days, I feel as you do. On the good ones, I remember that the Constitution is stronger than any one group of people in power and their stupidity.
      •  i also think that the poll numbers will force and (none)
        i do mean force that idiot to turn tail and run. stronger men than him have braved the american people and had to change. johnson for one! and while i am at it, the dinos will have to eat their words also. for so long now i have hoped and prayed the tipping point would come and i dare to hope that we are there.
    •  yep, too little, too late (none)
      as per USUAL

      when will we ever learn?

  •  This poll (4.00)
    gives us a cue about which dem candidates to support:

    --Made a mistake in going to war in Iraq, 53%

    --Keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, 60%

    So the majority is now thinking rationally and saying "This war was a goddamn stupid mistake but we cannot pullout immediately. The terrorists that Bush has created will come back and attack us. Iraq will splinter and the whole mid-east will go to hell"

    This was EXACTLY what Paul Hackett ran on - he opposed going to the war but did not support immediate withdrawal.

    So the Bayhs, Clintons and whoever the hell supported this war get the fuck out of the race.

    We need to put up a candidate who boldly stood up against the war and now has a reasonable plan for stabilizing the situation there and getting out in a reasonable amount of time.

    •  Another approach: (4.00)
      Mea culpa, but we're stuck for now.  A politician who voted "yes" can credibly do the specch Armando keeps on calling for: "I now realize that we were being lied to and I would never vote 'yes' if I had known then what we know now (including how incompetent the execution of the war would be)."  And then press the case for the Pottery Barn argument, if that is what is called for.

      I think that fits closely with the thinking of most Americans: Most of them were duped and went along with the war at the time, as well.

      If Bush were President when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he would have invaded Mexico.-- Cervantes

      by jem6x on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:59:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't that strategy (none)
        already lose us an election?

        Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

        by GTPinNJ on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:00:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what election? (none)
          I hadn't noticed that anything remotely resembling an "election" took place here.

          NONE DARE CALL IT STOLEN.....

        •  I (none)
          am afraid so. Those candidates are susceptible to be painted as wishy-washy, flip-floppers. Their message and plan to get out will be drowned in all the noise. Sounds familiar? It should!
        •  Kerry didn't know how to play it. (none)
          That "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" cost him a minimum of three percentage points alone. Everyone here knew what he meant, but to the average voter who gets his news in soundbites, it was waffling. Something like, "There were six different versions of that bill. I wanted to get body armor to the troops, but I didn't want to give a blank check to Halliburton." Would have been much better.

          That is of course assuming that the SCLM wasn't looking for an "I invented the internet" soundbite that they could run every ten minutes...

        •  re:I'd Say No (4.00)
          If we set aside for a moment the question of whether or not the election was stolen, I agree with the brutally simple logic of the Democratic strategist who wrote a few days before the election that Bush would win because he was a wartime president.  His approvals were lousy for an incumbent, but the worm had not yet turned as it has on public opinion of Iraq and of the Bush presidency.  It was still too easy for Republicans to characterize Kerry as wishy-washy for supporting then not supporting the war, especially because Kerry's comments were all over the place on the subject.  He got too cute, in my opinion, with his answers and was on the record first offering strong praise of Bush's warmongering from the floor of the Senate then condemning the decision.

          More broadly, and as we have often discussed here, a majority of voters wanted to believe Bush and trust his leadership.  It was emotional for them, not rational, and their support and trust were bound to remain firm until something shook them into their senses.  Such shakes have clearly occurred as people lose loved ones to this stupid war, and as the mountain of evidence of duplicity, cover-ups, and ineptitude grows.  

          And it becomes exponentially easier for individuals to exchange their faith in Bush with disgust as they realize they aren't alone.  Look at his support among Republicans in recent polls: It's in the low 70's in some, when for four years he counted on and got 90% or more.  It's how he "won": by turning out a faithful base.  For four years, if you were a Republican you supported your man Bush.  You practically had to, because that was what Republicans did and being a good Republican these days means in large measure thinking you're an independent thinker while marching in step.  Bush pere didn't earn that loyalty, but as I heard so often, he wasn't a real conservative like Reagan or more recently like his son.  But once you find that others are voicing what you're feeling, it becomes much easier to admit you've lost faith.

          Besides, it was a hell of a lot easier to believe in late 2004 that Iraq might coalesce into a Western democracy, especially if you know little of the country's history or of its ongoing deep religious and ethnic divides.  Likewise, it was easier to believe in 2004 that "9/11 changed everything" was a valid excuse for the sluggish economy, the mounting deficit, etc.  But almost a year later, as Bush keeps spouting platitudes about honor and sacrifice without doing anything, and with the help of ongoing scandals, people are seeing through the hollow rhetoric.

          But back to the question of whether or not our Democratic nominee can win by saying "I supported the war, because I believed the warnings that we now know are untrue": Yes.  In doing so, our nominee will undoubtedly sound much like his or her Republican opponent, and this is an issue where we win by having little distance.  Such rhetoric will match the views of, dare I assume, a majority of voters, and I think that's better than the one-upsmanship of "I never supported it," which runs the risk of being tarred as anti-war, soft on defense, etc.  Such is the sad state of affairs in our current national politics, but I think it's true.  If you were against the war even when virtually everyone in Washington supported it, then how different can you really be from Dennis Kucinich, who wants a "Department of Peace" (snicker)?  And if you were anti-war all along, then you probably lack the fortitude to fix the current mess--will you cut and run?

          Our best strategy in 2008, I think, is to have a candidate who sounds pretty much like his or her Republican counterpart on Iraq.  That way, the Democrat can sound just as strong and firm while still criticizing the Republicans that tried to deny the bloody mess Bush got us into: Those Republicans weren't leveling with the American people.  And the election will hinge on lingering social issues: the economy, energy, social security, the budget deficit.  Our nominee will have voted against all the domestic bills that are screwing things up, and our nominee will be able to cite the economy of the 90's and the black ink of those budgets.  Finally, our nominee's stands on key issues--including Iraq--will be in line with a solid majority of voters.  That's how to win presidential elections.

          If such a nominee loses, I think it will be in no small part because of liberals that refuse to vote for someone who doesn't pass their Iraq purity test.  I was always dead set against invading Iraq, but what's important now is for us to win the White House in 2008.

          It's time for Trogdor to do some burninatin' on the Republicans' thatched-roof cottages.

          by deminva on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:44:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good analysis. (none)
            One thing I'd differ on:  A D candidate needn't really sound like an R candidate on all of this, because he/she can express outrage at the lies and the incompetence, which an R would not want to do.

            If Bush were President when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he would have invaded Mexico.-- Cervantes

            by jem6x on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:54:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Why I disagree. (none)
            The responses to question 2 and question 4 above.  A Dem candidate that opposed the war from the beginning doesn't look so much like a peacenik as someone who was ahead of the curve.  The difference between the Hackett position (or as I like to call it, the Dean position) and the Kucinich position is that you're talking about an immediate withdrawal vs. continued efforts to "stabilize" Iraq...60% evidently support the latter.  

            I still think you're following the Kerry position which makes the candidate look like a flip-flopper or a dupe.

            Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

            by GTPinNJ on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:03:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  re:Hackett (none)
              enjoys the privileged position of saying I never supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but once he made that decision, I knew I wanted to fight for my country.  I love Dean now like I loved him two years ago, but if he's the nominee, we're going to be hearing about freaking skiing in Colorado.

              It's time for Trogdor to do some burninatin' on the Republicans' thatched-roof cottages.

              by deminva on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:27:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Its not my Mea Culpa, I voted Kucinich (none)
        Not that I support the immediate withdrawal plan now, but I did whenever the last time was that there was a possibility to bring the UN in (i.e. before their HQ got bombed?)

        Apart from the temptation for those who opposed the war from day one to say I told you so, I truly believe that the best candidate is the one who opposed the war from the beginning, the person whose instincts were to use force only as a last restort, the person who already understood the importance of avoiding the temptation to react to 9/11 with rash decisions (as was OBL's wont).

        Dean and Feingold have that position, but both can be painted as wussy liberals.  So Clark emerges as the guy who can say: I was against the war before it started, and yet I am committed to salvaging the campaign with a new and better strategy, plus I have the military cred to actually implement and execute a solid plan.  When I do something unpopular, people will give me the benefit of the doubt because they know I have the experience to make sound decisions.

        "Its a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll." - AC/DC

        by polnorth on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 01:11:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wanted to post a snarky Titanic comment (none)
    But need more coffee. Add your own.

    Flags don't kill people, governments do.
    Take back the flag, take back the government.

    by BOHICA on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:58:01 AM PDT

  •  Recommended (none)
    Thanks for posting.  :)
  •  Something I don't understand. (none)
    How could 54% of Americans know someone who has served in this war?  Don't we have something like 1 million men and women in arms?  And only about 130,000 troops have been in Iraq at any moment.

    I am surprised and puzzled by how high that figure is.  In fact, I can't remember where it was, but I was reading someone the other day arguing that part of the political problem with this war is the small fraction of Americans who have a personal stake in it -- for most, it's an abstraction.  If this 54% figure is correct, it is good news.

    If Bush were President when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he would have invaded Mexico.-- Cervantes

    by jem6x on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:03:10 AM PDT

    •  It also doesn't account for (none)
      the Republicans who lied about their military duties and responsibilites, saying they wanted to join up but had "other priorities" or "pylonidal cysts" or "all the places were filled when I got to the recruiting office" or "I wear a lapel button instead."

      The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

      by MoronMike on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:11:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  2 Americas (none)
      The people polled who "know someone" are probably parts of demographic groups that do not intermingle with those who don't "know someone".  A while ago there was a diary about a "patriotic" woman who responded to a military recruiter by saying that serving in the military wasn't something "our kind of people" do - I think that's what this number is reflecting here.

      "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords..."

      by pawlr on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:27:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Shouldn't really surpise you. (none)
      Consider my son, for example, who is currently over ther.

      Four immediate family members composed of wife and 3 children, plus brother, father, mother, 2 grandmothers, brother, 11 aunts and uncles, 13 cousins, several nieces and nephews, mother and father in law, 2 sisters-in-law, numerous school friends he stays in contact with, etc.

      It isn't hard.

      Bush, so incompetent, he can't even do the wrong things right.

      by JAPA21 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:28:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Broad question (none)
      The question was pretty broad, especially "colleague." It's not really surprising that over half of all Americans report having a coworker who has served in the war. That is true for me, but I have only met the man a few times, and he actually offices in a different state.

      Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.

      by JamesC on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:30:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dark lining to a silver polling cloud: (none)
    How many of those 'Strongly Disapprove' or 'Disapprove' respondents want more killing? Think Bush isn't 'forceful' enough? Want the whole place 'cleaned out once and for all'? Mutter stuff about 'radioactive glass'?

    They're not all our friends because they're in the same polling category, folks.

    Patria est ubicumque bene. "Their 'Homeland' is wherever they can turn a buck." Cicero, Tusculan Disputations.

    by Otis Noman on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:08:29 AM PDT

  •  Attention pollsters! (4.00)
    Can I get a question out there for you? How about something that measures to what extent Americans think the Iraq war is responsible for skyrocketing gas prices?
  •  When 87% say it's cool (none)
    to say "It's Uncool"...

    ...who's the traitor, here?

    Nothing says 'watch out!' like an elephant gone rogue.

    by cskendrick on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:09:27 AM PDT

    •  I disagree with lapin about the 87% (none)
      Here's the kick to Bush's groin and to the groin of all those wingnuts who want to call dissenters treasonous traitors.

      6. Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?

      --Yes, 87 percent

      In other words, fuck you Limbaugh.

      I think that making a big deal out of the fact that Limbaugh and the wingnuts have staked out what turns out to be an extreme position is a mistake.  Far from this being a miscalculation on their part, I think it's always been a key part of their strategy to drag the discourse in their direction: if they represented the majority, I think they'd take that as a sign that they weren't being extreme enough.  

      Compare that philosophy with the Democrats' pathetic chasing after the center.  That's how the Right manage to make the 'middle-of-the-road' so far to the right of the majority of American opinion.  

      •  100% of the sample... (none)
        ...thinks that breathing oxygen is cool.

        Serious side of coin

        That snark has a serious demonstration -- that there do exist circumstances, for which radicalizing the discourse just isn't good survival, never mind politics.

        A more (unfortunately) realistic one would be advocating wholesale unilateral dropping of nuclear weapons on an enemy, unprovoked...in order to establish negotiating room for the barely-less-wholesome dropping of "just one"...which in almost all scenarios requires everyone else in the room to take the fallout quietly, and like it.

        Yet it depends on audience

        I concede the point that Rush, et al, are less interested in converting the body politic at large, and more interesting in intentifying the extant conversion experience for persons who have already started to have their hardwiring altered to conform to FoxSpeak.

        In which case, there is no dragging of the discourse rightward...just dragging victims of such rhetoric into the streets.

        And this we have seen before...back when those people that nobody is allowed to mentioned anymore starting running things in Germany.

        Nothing says 'watch out!' like an elephant gone rogue.

        by cskendrick on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:29:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The only polls that matter (none)
    Hold the bubbly, the only pols that matter are the ones taken in voting booths.
  •  We might be reading this question wrong (none)
    6. Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?

    --Yes, 87 percent

    --No, 12 percent

    --Not sure, 1 percent

    I think they are asking if you have the right to dissent, not do you approve of the dissent. Maybe, just approving of the right to dissent after 5 years of this administration, is saying alot, tho.

    Mythology is what we call other people's religion-Joseph Campbell

    by Sherri in TX on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:23:23 AM PDT

    •  When you consider (none)
      that the administration and Faux news etc are painting dissent as meaning we don't want to defeta the terrorists or are providing the terrorists moral support, I think 87% is a remarkable number.

      Bush, so incompetent, he can't even do the wrong things right.

      by JAPA21 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:30:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even more to it... (none)
        I think there's even more to it. In these polls, people give their opinions -- they'll often say things they don't necessarily believe just to get their voice heard.

        In other words, if people are truly pissed at Cindy Sheehan, they'd say "no protesting!" even if they didn't believe it, just because they are mad at her. In fact, I'd say that is a lot of where that 12% comes from.

    •  I suspect some folks read it one way (none)
      and others the other. I truly can't imagine that 12% of the people in this country don't think there is a constitutional right to speak out against the war. OTOH, I agree with you, 87% supporting the dissent sounds high.

      I suppose that's what you get when you ask if something is "ok."

  •  Wacky (none)
    I can understand - not agree with, but understand - thinking that we should have gone to war with Iraq.  And thinking that democracy will flourish there, that we should stay there "until the situation stabilizes", and so forth.

    But over one out of every ten people say that it's not okay for people to speak their minds?

    What planet are these people from?

  •  Doing a rove... (4.00)
    Dems need to pull a Rove and attack Bush's traditional foundation of "keeping America safe."

    Pulling a Rove would be attacking Bush on an obvious point of apparent strength and making it look like a weakness.  So, let's take Bush's strength which is...  ummmm...  I mean he did that... no... errrr...

    Rover, you are a GENIUS!  You've groomed a president who is so lacking of any obvious strength that your own tactics will not work against him.  BRILLIAN!

  •  87% (none)
    Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?

    --Yes, 87 percent

    Freedom is freedom.

    I know how men in exile feed on dreams. - Aeschylus

    by Patricia Taylor on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:26:21 AM PDT

    •  sounds (4.00)
      It sounds like a fair number of the 2002 pro-war crowd may also be saying "you know, those other folks may have been right"

      One of the strong points of taking a principled position and arguing it (as opposed to the Democrats and their constant shifting to the latest focus group results), is that over a long time you earn credibility even from your opponents.

      Also, one of the strongest arguments in favor of freedom in a society is that free debate is a good preventative against a small group following a disasterous policy unchecked.

      It sounds like a lot of the people who were throwing things and yelling threats at us anti-war protestors back in 2002/03 are now starting to realize why a free society is important.

      •  Excellent Comment (none)
        Especially this -

        Also, one of the strongest arguments in favor of freedom in a society is that free debate is a good preventative against a small group following a disasterous policy unchecked.

        This is true examination of real "tyranny of the minority."

        I wonder when the Bush Administration will push it so far as to bring the true conservatives still in the GOP to the point at which they call for GWB's resignation because he's ruining the Republican Party with the agenda he follows.

        I know how men in exile feed on dreams. - Aeschylus

        by Patricia Taylor on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 11:37:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  NOTICE (4.00)
    how the Monkey King's numbers and the war numbers are beginning to coalesce. The public is making him own this war.  It's fast becoming his war.  If you live by the sword, you shall indeed die by it.
  •  Withdrawl Timetable Poll (none)
    Why is the choice only between "get out now" and
    "stay indefinetly." How about for example:
    Leave within 2 months of the parlimentary elections.
  •  `The most important question is #3 (none)
    This is the key to getting our soldiers home without further damage.  

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that a slight majority of Americans think there can still be a stable democracy there.  I guess they just believe it on faith.  

    But that's the important number to understand -- as long as people think that a stable democracy can happen, they won't support bringing the troops home. In fact, when Republicans charge us with, "Cut and run" they'll believe the charge so long as they still think we can 'succeed' there (defining succeed as creating a stable Democracy, as opposed to the reasons we were told we were being sent to war).

    To me, the only way we're going to get the troops home is to show people that staying longer is only postponing the inevitable at a cost of American lives, treasure and prestige.  

    Once that number turns to a negative, the war is over.  There will be no more rationale for keeping the troops there. And that's when we'll see the immediate withdrawal number move.

    •  asdf (none)
      We're egging on the insurgency and mucking up the establishment of a civil society in Iraq, that's for sure, but there's also a genuine fear that Iraq will turn into Afghanistan when we leave.

      Maybe we should get on our knees and beg the world for help. An international peacekeeping force--comprised largely of pan-Arab troops--and allowing the Iraqis to nationalize their oil industry might be the only way out.

      Like that's something Bush and Cheney would ever consider for five seconds.

      Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

      by saucy monkey on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:05:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dumb Question (none)
    Why aren't we seeing general Bush support numbers as part of this poll?  They haven't done one of these in a while, would be interesting to know.

    Also is there some sort of polling schedule where all the major outfits tell when the next poll will come out?  I've been scouring Google but to no avail.

    Any help appreciated -thx!

    "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords..."

    by pawlr on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:32:06 AM PDT

    •  Frum Flees (4.00)
      Hello,
      I just read on antiwar.com that even David Frum, coiner of "axis of evil" is fleeing from Bush in terror.  I've just recently gotten into the Kos by the way, so if this is old news- sorry.

      Frum says in "The National Review" on 8/23, "Let me mention just one single but maybe decisive problem. Again and again during the Bush presidency - and yesterday and most recently - the president will agree to give what is advertised in advance as a major speech. An important venue will be chosen. A crowd of thousands will be gathered. And after these deliberate preparations, the president says - nothing that he has not said a hundred times before."
      His friends appear to be running from him like roadrunners on Red Bull.

      I can't believe I'm quoting Frum.  I picked up "An End to Evil" once just to look at it- yoiks. Scarier than Stephen King, that's for sure.

    •  Try here (none)
      Polling Report.  Great site.

      Sell your cleverness; buy bewilderment.

      by lapin on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:00:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  40% (4.00)
    I always use 40% as somewhat of a marker line in polls.  That's because to me there's a very simplistic model of the electorate that basically says there's 40% who are die-hard republicans, 40% who are die-hard democrats, and 20% in the middle.

    In general, if you look at election campaigns going back to the 60's, this is about what you see.  Even the truly bad and ridiculous campaigns (Goldwater, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, GHW Bush) never really go below that 40% line.

    So that's why the 37% poll number is interesting to me.  That says that Dubya is either at the point where the only support he has are die-hard republicans who wouldn't even consider voting for another party ... or that he's starting to actually lose the support of some of these people.

    Depends on how you look at the margin of error.  37% plus/minus 3 or 4% is basically forty percent.  But then, you can also look at it as saying that about 8% of the Republican party die-hard faithful voters are starting to say Bush sucks.  Remember, that error could go the other way and Bush could really be down at around 32%.

    On withdraw, its basically the opposite.  This is largely saying that almost all of the Democratic voters have moved to saying that we should get out now.  But the middle is still with the republicans in buying the Pottery Barn theory.  That's a bit simplistic, as some of the Libertarian and true-conservative voters are also moving in favor of withdrawal.  But still, most of those out-now voters would likely be Democratic voters.

    Considering that voices arguing for withdrawal are still very rare in the corporate media, while the airwaves are constantly full of propaganda arguing that we must stay and fix it, this is still a very significant part of the electorate that has abandoned the "we must stay the course" argument.  Its also encouraging in that to me it says a substantial part of the electorate has stopped listening to the corporate media propaganda machine.  That's a vital pre-requisite to Democratic victories in the age of near-fascist corporate media.

    And it also says that in absolutely every Democratic Primary in 2006, we must have an anti-war/withdrawal now canidate.  I think this poll says those candidates would mop the floor with the Democratic morons who want us to stay in this mess.

    The Democratic Party has had absolutely disasterous leadership for over a decade now.  Their only victory was over a pathetic Dole campaign when they had the power of the incumbancy.  This is looking like a prime opportunity to kick this whole bunch of losers out of the party and end their self-crippling influence on the party.

    Do this right, and the Democratic Party can both get back to a position of being the political voice of everyday ordinary Americans, and also become victorious again.

  •  Don't pull out the troops (4.00)
    Pull the contractors instead. Our soldiers are sending far too much time defending Halliburton instead of stabilizing Iraq. Remove the contractors where Iraqi companies can do the work and you get two things.

    1. Less attacks against Americans. There will be fewer targets and the military will not be quite as overextended as it is now. Also, despite the fact our military should not be used to nation build, they will have a better chance to focus on that as a mission and hopefully be able to draw down sooner.

    2. The Iraqis will have a better stake in their own country. Who over there right now wants to defend Americans when they have 50% unemployment, 20 hours a day without electricity and an occupied country.

    Another thing about stabilizing (from one of the comments above), I would say Iraq is stable if and when there is little chance for it to descend into civil war, they have a working constitution, their own forces can defend the nation and keep it secure, the three ethnic groups have worked out some means of sharing the resources of Iraq and, very importantly, everyone, including women are able to participate in the nation as an equal citizen. Just my two cents on that one.

    Do Pavlov's dogs chase Schroedinger's cat?

    by corwin on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:38:34 AM PDT

  •  President Indiot is getting his (none)
    comeupance.

    Do not despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one of the thieves was damned.-Augustine of Hippo

    by DCDemocrat on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:41:55 AM PDT

  •  Are those (none)
    unusually low undecided numbers? Seems like everyone seems to have an opinion, yea or nay.
  •  Bagged it, Lapin! (none)
    Excellent catch.  THIS MAKES MY DAY, being a shy dissenter and all.

    All I really care about is seeing my cousin in ChiTown eat her hat when BushCo goes down.  It better be a big hurkin ugly hat, Cuz!  (snark!)

    The tolerance for dissent poll blows me away.  May this redeem some of our threadbare international reputation.

    Lapin, find somebody who Tivo'd Jon Stewart last night.  He's my elected representative for dissent.  

  •  Does this mean the blinking dems (none)
    will finally start to work as an opposition party?
  •  Sunnis want Saddam back (with photo) (none)
    See this LINK

    Be a Carville, not a Colmes

    by seesdifferent on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:56:39 AM PDT

  •  I'm sure Karen Hughes can fix this (4.00)
    I'm just a guy on a blog, but this don't seem to be so good. I'm sure Karen Hughes will be able to fix this and make everything better:

    http://tinyurl.com/8cudb

    One hundred thousand Shi'ites protest Iraq charter
    (Reuters)

    A hundred thousand Iraqis across the country marched on Friday in support of a maverick Shi'ite cleric opposed to a draft constitution that U.S.-backed government leaders say will deliver a brighter future.

    The protest could reinforce the opposition of Sunni Arabs who dominate the insurgency and are bitterly against the draft.

    Supporters of young Shi'ite firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr, who has staged two uprisings against U.S. troops, also protested against poor services during their marches, stepping up the pressure on the government.

    A hundred thousand Sadr supporters marched in eight cities, including 30,000 people who gathered for a sermon delivered on his behalf in a Baghdad slum district.

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:00:39 AM PDT

  •  Poll of the year (none)
    6. Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?

    --Yes, 87 percent

    --No, 12 percent

    --Not sure, 1 percent

    ARE YOUR KIDDIN' ME?

    that means only 12% of americans are patriotic,only 12% care to support the troops?!!!????

    hahaha...take that Truth Tour.IN YOUR FACE!!..

  •  If only (none)
    these were the Chimperor's poll numbers a year ago, things might be very different now.  

    [heaving a heavy sigh]

  •  Was I the only one that saw the (none)
    incredibly stupid statement made by a Republican in NY towards the end of the Yahoo story.

    Vivian Snyder, a Republican from Staten Island, N.Y., said she disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, but doesn't want troops to leave yet. "Otherwise, it's all for nothing."

    So more deaths to honor the deaths before them is...

    I've been a big fighter of rights for women for a long time...

    but sometimes there are those small moments in time when I just want to slap the shit out of some women.

    Bring Them Home. Now.

    by ladydawg on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:19:32 AM PDT

  •  Don't get too hot & bothered 'bout that 87% (none)
    figure - remember what Chimp has been saying all along:

    ... She feels strongly about her position. She has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. I've heard her position from others, which is to get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake ...

    I suspect that a big chunk of that 87% are taking Chimpy at his word here, that dissent is American and we all have the right etc., but that's not the same as agreeing with the dissenters.

    For a more accurate count of the dissent I would look at the "war was a mistake," "want to know the withdrawal timetable" polls, which I think range from 40-50% depending on the pollster.

    I am the federal government.

    by mateosf on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:22:40 AM PDT

  •  The most striking number here (4.00)
    is 78% -- the percentage of people who reject Bush's claim that the war in Iraq has made us safer from terrorism.  All the "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" bullshit isn't getting through.  

    We should be talking about the emerging anti-war consensus, not about growing acceptance of our "dissent."  

  •  A soldier's view (1.33)
    'Wonderful time to be a soldier'
    By Joe Roche
    August 26, 2005

    I'm very proud to be a soldier of the U.S. Army because of the war on terror and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not alone either. I'm surrounded by soldiers who are re-enlisting and volunteering to go to units that are deploying. In fact, despite all the negative news and protests, I see everyday that our military is actually doing very well.

        This is quite obvious, except for the fact that most of the media seems asphyxiated with defeatism. The message from most journalists would lead you to believe that we soldiers are getting out, that no one is joining anew and that we want to stop fighting. This simply isn't true.

        Yes, recruitment is lower, but the caliber of those who are signing up and the rates of re-enlistment are both extremely high. All 10 of our major combat divisions are ahead of expectations for retention of soldiers. In my unit, there are soldiers who specifically went active duty from the reserves because they want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.

        Before September 11, a lot of soldiers were happy to just enjoy the benefits. Since that day, those soldiers have left. That is fine and not the disaster that defeatist reports are making it seem. Such soldiers were never the types to want to go on long deployments and face combat. Yes, they were heroes for signing up and being in a job that could go that direction, but they had other priorities that made their service contingent on enjoying the benefits rather than serving in war.

        That changed on September 11. Now, just as we are told to expect when joining, we are going to combat and many soldiers are getting injured and killed. This is our job, and it is what we know can happen. I don't know why the media insists on trumpeting the idea that all of us are tired and worn out and just want to stop fighting. I don't, and I am not alone.

        The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.

        From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan each year. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat.

        Injuries are high, but they are nothing compared to past conflicts. And most striking is how many are recovering well. I have been to both of the major military hospitals involved in this war, Landstuhl in Germany and Walter Reed in Washington, and I can tell you that there are many soldiers who have lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan and who want to return to their units and get redeployed.

        Like I said earlier, though, the striking fact I see every day is that the soldiers who are joining now are of much higher caliber than those who joined before September 11. The senior commandant of the Marines recently testified before Congress that the same is happening with them. There maybe fewer than before, but those that do show up are willing and dedicated to being deployed and going to combat. These are also the types who are re-enlisting more than ever before. In fact, re-enlistment is up to 130 percent of expectations in some divisions.

        My wife is in the National Guard. Theirs is an interesting experience right now in that there have been more casualties by accidents and reckless behavior off-duty than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are protesters not upset about that? Sadly it appears that much of the media are obsessed with defeatism. Even the message of the protesters -- contradictory, false and confused as ever -- is made front-page headline news every day. The few people they can exploit to push this defeatist agenda are made to appear to speak for all of us. That just isn't true.

        Contrary to all the bad news, I see everyday that our soldiers are motivated and eager to contribute and participate in our nation's military missions. This is a very proud and important time to be serving. Considering that out of a population of 285 million, less than one-tenth of one percent are going to war right now, and considering the huge impact we are having on the world, this is a wonderful time to be a soldier in the U.S. Army.

        Sgt. Joe Roche is with the 12th Aviation Battalion and stationed at Fort Belvoir.

    =================

    One of my Vietnam Navy buddies has a son who is career Army. He and his wife (an Army helicopter pilot) served a year in Iraq as a company commanders (O-3). He has reams of pix and letters from grateful Iraqis thanking him and the US fir throwing-out Saddam and giving them a far better life.

    By ignoring the whole story, you discredit your argument. And let me tell you from personal experience -- there is no such thing as 'supporting our troops but opposing what they do.' That's sophist bullshit.

    •  These are great pictures. (none)
      And I honor your service.  But there are many pictures that come out of this war, and not all of them are so nice.  Some of the worst ones are kept from us 'for our own good', and that is at least as important as seeing some of the best.  

      I'm talking about the pictures of flag-draped coffins that the government so desperately wants to censor, that hide from us the true cost of this war.  Or the pictures from Abu Ghraib, the newer ones, that this administration fears would destroy their fragile spin about prison abuse being 'a few fraternity pranks'.  There's even that curious one from a while back with Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with a grinning Saddam.  All very important pictures.

      Part of the beauty of our country is that we're allowed such wide diversity of opinion.  You'll find that diversity of opinion widely-represented among your brothers in arms, many of whom don't like this war as much as you appear to.  Many of them now ask, as they sit in those same hospitals, what the war was for.  Perhaps their vision is not as clear as yours, or perhaps they are beginning to ask tough questions of this administration about why they had to be so badly injured--a soldier's right, an American right.  Their loved ones begin to ask as well, about why their brother or father had to die.  

      I'm glad you're happy to serve.  Thank you once again.  Thank you for protecting my right to disagree with you.

      One other thing:  there is this strange idea that the 'good news' in Iraq is not being reported or treated as important.  I agree, in many cases it's not.  But if a house is on fire, Joe, and the beams are falling in, how important is it that someone is playing the piano very beautifully in the parlor?

      "Patriotism flourishes in the rear echelon."--Alexander Solzhenitsyn

      by Fantomas71 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 01:41:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ...although your post reads like... (4.00)
      ...a press release from the WH.

      Is this a reprint from another publication?

      Usually we prefer such things blockquoted so that it doesn't make the post appear as if the person themselves were posting.

      Funny how you appear to refer to yourself in the third person near the end there.

      But let's assume you are who you say/appear to be and that this person actually exists in the U.S Army.

      If you get time enough to read this site, you'll be able to understand the NOBODY on kos says "supporting our troops but opposing what they do."

      You'll need to grasp the distinction betwen that statement and this one:

      "We support our troops, but oppose how they've been deployed."

      As you know (aren't we to assume that you are the Ranger qualified Infantry Captain with the 101st Airborne Division) troops are deployed in the same ways that any military asset is deployed. Sometime well and properly and other times stupidly and without concern for the asset itself.

      On any of your many training missions or perhaps in combat itself, have you not noticed a tank or dragon team or machine gun nest that has been improperly positioned to make maximum use of it's abilities?

      Haven't you thought to yourself, I would put that MG here to achieve interlocking fields of fire for this defensive position? For instance.

      That is merely what the U.S. Citizens who are proud to be Americans are saying. We're saying we think Osama should be dead and Haliburton shouldn't be rich, and in that pursuit over 1,700 us soldiers shouldn't be dead with over 10,000 maimed.

      How about "We support our troops, but not the draft-dodging, drunk-driving coke-head usurper who stole two elections, is reducing veterans and mil. family benefits, refusing to properly equip soldiers in war or even send enough troops to get the job done, firing every field commander who suggests increases in troop levels then has the balls to say he's the war president"?

      Would you prefer that "sophist bullshit"?

      spc. d. prock
      HHC 505th PIR
      82nd ABN
      1986-1989

      "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

      by dj angst on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wish there were 10's (none)
        for comments - you explain it very well.

        Practice absurdus interruptus - Support ePluribus Media.

        by Catte Nappe on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:22:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would have rated the parent post (none)
        a '0' but for the fact that thiis would have hidden your wonderful reply which is honestly one of the best posts I've ever read on here and a terrific takedown on an asshole troll who is simply passing off the words of a truly courageous individual serving his country as his own so he can sit back and trumpet for the war from behind the safety of his computer.

        Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

        by GTPinNJ on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 03:05:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the clarification (none)
          Anyone who disagrees with you is a "troll." Thanks for the clarification.
          •  a troll... (none)
            is anyone who creates a membership for the sole purpose of spreading their propaganda.

            Your profile is empty. You have no history here.

            BTW: what unit did you serve in? Are you between the age of 18 and 36?

            Answer truthfully; jebus hates liars.

            "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

            by dj angst on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:25:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  No. (none)
        Is this a reprint from another publication? No. A letter home circulated to others.
        •  it is actually... (none)
          a reprint, which I've proved below. Unless you're part of Joe Roche's family. Are you? He sent this to you? So who published it in the Wash. Times?

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050825-090528-8396r.htm

          "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

          by dj angst on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:29:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Armies are for killing (none)

      To the extent that the problems that we have can be solved with brute force versus negotiation, education or time, well, I am all for it.  Unfortunately, power and killing don't solve most of what is wrong with the war on terror.

      I am sure that you feel enobled by killing people and so called vanquishing an enemy that you think is responsible for the terror attack on 9/11.  You have probably killed a lot of innocent Iraqis and their children, making innocent people pay for crimes that not only they never committed, but no one in Iraq did either (for 9/11).

      While I generally respect service people, I will not under any circumstances respect what you are  doing now.  Its not your fault completely since you are being told what to do, but from your letter, you seem to think that its the right thing to do so must carry a part of the burden.  I believe that what you are doing is not only wrong, but putting your country in even deeper danger. It is also morally wrong. I quietly respect your right to an opinion and to enlist and carry out this mission, but I will not applaud you. I hope that one day you may actually "get it" but I doubt it.  

      One more thing.  You guys seem to think that by rubbing the flag in the nose of those of us who are against the war that somehow you can make us say that we respect you while abusing the faith that we had in our system by carrying out a wrong war.  Its getting old and thin for me and I am feeling less and less inclined to give soldiers anything but the most lukewarm acknowledgement. You said it - you are doing a job.  Doing the wrong job the wrong way and I dont feel inclined to pat you on the back for it.

      Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

      by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:22:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ahh. now i get it. (none)
      Sgt. Joe Roche is a good-guy who wrote (and writes well) and actually gets things done for real soldiers (unlike their CINC)

      ltn72 is a troll who like many trolls systematically reprints Roches articles in various blogs without properly crediting the reprint, without full disclosure or even captioned/sourced photographs.

      Original story posted here:
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050825-090528-8396r.htm

      Please note Joe Roche DID NOT write this statement:
      By ignoring the whole story, you discredit your argument. And let me tell you from personal experience -- there is no such thing as 'supporting our troops but opposing what they do.' That's sophist bullshit.

      All in order to make the reader believe the post is by a real soldier. Nice try you chicken-hawk shitbag.

      "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

      by dj angst on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:26:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (none)
        ltn72 is a troll who like many trolls systematically reprints Roches articles in various blogs without properly crediting the reprint, without full disclosure or even captioned/sourced photographs. Please note Joe Roche DID NOT write this statement: By ignoring the whole story, you discredit your argument. And let me tell you from personal experience -- there is no such thing as 'supporting our troops but opposing what they do.' That's sophist bullshit. All in order to make the reader believe the post is by a real soldier. Nice try you chicken-hawk shitbag.

        No, Roche did not write that. I did. As for your delightful-if-revealing invective "chicken hawk shitbag," I volunteered for and completed two tours in Vietnam. What's your military background? Hateful language directed at a political opponent simply destroys one's argument.

        •  if you actually read my comment... (none)
          ... you would know the following:

          A. It became obvious to me that SOME of what you posted was your and MOST was Roche's. My problem with you is that you failed to make sufficient distinction between the two. I believe you did so in order to deceive the readers. You continue to obfuscate so I have yet to be convinced of anything you've written.

          B. I posted my name, rank, unit and service period. You have not, why don't you do the same so that I can run it by my buddy in PERSCOM so that we can see what's in your DD214?

          BTW. Got kids? If so, they in Iraq? If not, the chickenhawk appelation remains.

          "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

          by dj angst on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 11:32:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Supporting Troops (none)
      Actually you may have a point about the impossibility of supporting the troops and opposing their actions.  But since these troops have special consequences for not following orders, you may also be full of shit.

      "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." -James Madison

      by Subterranean on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 11:14:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oath (none)
        Actually you may have a point about the impossibility of supporting the troops and opposing their actions. But since these troops have special consequences for not following orders, you may also be full of shit.

        When you join you freely take an oath to obey all orders from those appointed over you. Orders aren't something you might obey if you feel like it and it doesn't offend your sensibilities. The US military has for some time been 100% volunteer. In this context, I don't understand your second sentence.

  •  the "pottery barn" crowd (none)
    is not being realistic, imo.  it's a noble enough theory, but its proponents seem to not take the proper metrics into account.  chief among them being the fact that we simly haven't the manpower to do what needs to be done in iraq.

    given that we can't stabilize the place, it makes absolutely zero sense to prolong our involvement, especially since our very presence contributes to the instability.

    it just doesn't add up.

    •  ...the biggest bone I can throw the bushco... (none)
      ..is tghe EXTREMELY optimistic notion I had post november 2004. was that

      "Now that that these chicken-shits have succeeded in stealing another election (conyers-ohio) at least now they'll do as right-a-thing-as-they-can and increase troops to 500,000 or more to do this job (now that we're there) right."

      Again slapped in the face with the cold, cold reality of republican politics.

      The race was so close, and perhaps the writing on the wall so clear, the RNC demand no troop increases for fear of a dem sweep of the 06 mid-terms.

      Once again, politics over policy, lubricated by the blood and funded from the labor of the middle & lower class.

      "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

      by dj angst on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:03:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lincoln quote (none)
    This quote has been rummaging around in my mind for about six months. I think the American people are finally seeing the Bushies for what they are. The quote

    "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." Senator Moynihan

    by 1seeker on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 01:30:10 PM PDT

  •  Bush lost Iraq, now he's losing America (none)
    Bush lost Iraq, now he's losing America.

    ... a restatement of Digby's applied to the polls.

    Bush is losing his approval ratings because he lost Iraq.

  •  How it spins.... (none)
    Got terrible poll nuimbers on your war? Frame it like this:

    AP Poll: Military Kin Likelier to Back War

    By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - People with friends or relatives serving in
    Iraq are more likely than others to have a positive view of a generally unpopular war, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

    Some of those surveyed said their relationships with troops helped them learn more about what's going on in Iraq beyond the violence. Others said their opinions of the war were shaped by a sense of loyalty to those in harm's way.

    A solid majority of those who did not know anyone in Iraq said they thought the war was a mistake, 61 percent, compared to 36 percent who thought it was the right decision. Those who had a relative or friend there were almost evenly split, 49 percent right decision, 47 percent mistake.

    After Ted Chittum of Bourbon, Ind., had a chance to talk at length with his cousin who served in Iraq, he said he got a different picture of what was going on in the country.

    "He talked about all the good things that are going on," said Chittum, a school superintendent and a political independent who supports the war effort. "Schools are opening up. The people are friendly, wanting our help. You get a whole different spin from what you get on television."

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    More than half of those polled, 53 percent, say the United States erred by going to war in Iraq. Various polls show public opinion turning against the Iraq war more quickly than it did during the Vietnam conflict in the late 1960s.

    "Our attention span is simply shorter," said Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Our willingness to put up with a difficult military situation and losses isn't what it used to be."

    Six in 10 in the poll support keeping troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed, a process mired in crafting a constitution acceptable to Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

    Vivian Snyder, a Republican from Staten Island, N.Y., said she disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, but she doesn't want troops to leave yet. "Otherwise, it's all for nothing," she said.

    The poll of 1,001 adults was conducted Aug. 22-24 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    •  Yeah, it all our fault (none)
      Attention spans are shorter? The reality is not what's reflected on television?

      Yeah. He's right, that's what the problem in America is ....

      I am so amazed that this sh*t flies....

  •  Yes, but how much support for... (none)
    ...anti-war "hippies"?  You know, the sort Kos despises?  

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 05:25:52 PM PDT

  •  Assume makes an ass of u and me (none)
    ... you would know the following:

    A. It became obvious to me that SOME of what you posted was your and MOST was Roche's. My problem with you is that you failed to make sufficient distinction between the two. I believe you did so in order to deceive the readers. You continue to obfuscate so I have yet to be convinced of anything you've written.

       I made my self clear. You chose to obfuscate.

    B. I posted my name, rank, unit and service period. You have not, why don't you do the same so that I can run it by my buddy in PERSCOM so that we can see what's in your DD214?

       As I said, your "buddy" is a criminal. It is a felony to release a DD-214 to anyone except (1) the vet (2) the vet's survivorr (3) a court order.  If you encourage him, so are you. I retired from the Navy as an O-5/1325 after 28 years.

    BTW. Got kids? If so, they in Iraq? If not, the chickenhawk appelation remains.

       Got kids? Using your reasoning, if they have not volunteered for service, they are cowards. Serve in Vietnam alongside me and my squadron?  No? Guess you're a coward, too.

       This forum is long on invective and short on solutions. No, "impeaching Bush" is not a solution. After Bush, succession is Cheney, Hastert, senate president pro temp. The side that wins elections gets to call the shots. "Bush stole the election!" ? Riding that horse just makes you look like a sore loser.

    "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." -- Carroll

    "Capitalism is the uneven distribution of blessings. Socialism is the even distribution of misery." -- Winston Churchill

    by ltn72 on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 08:20:07 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site