Announcement by Bush of troop withdrawal

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
136
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Let me know when 90%+ of the troops are gone. This is nothing and is the same level of troops in November 06 when the U.S. voted the Republican party out of a majority because of the war.
LOL! Michael Moore could win the Presidency, and you still won't see a 90% cut of our troops in Iraq until 2015, or later!

When are you people going to finally understand that!?

We.are.there.to.stay!

Why do we want our troops to stay in Iraq? So our open borders can wash away our sovereignty? So Iran can continue to freely develop its nuclear technology? So that when we DO finally leave Iraq it can turn against us and align itself with radical Islam under the guise of legitimacy not unlike how our liberals call Iran a ?Democracy??

I would rather see Iraq burn in ruins than watch us bleed so that they can develop into the next Iran.

When a crop is rotten you cull it like a weed. You don?t build up the poison and then swallow it whole.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No, because in the end, your BS was so thick that it really doesn't matter what anyone says. Facts are that Bush can't win, you're right; except he's the one that put himself in a no-win situation. Yes, they do exist, and Iraq is it. Deal with it.
Yes. Facts are facts, but usually only at AT P&N and the other websites that find themselves on the left side of the political spectrum.

Whether Bush "wins" or not depends on your reference frame. When viewed through the reference frame of this forum, Bush can never win. However, to tell the truth, I don't find this forum to be any sort of reflection of public opinion. It's kind of scary that a few in here appear to think it is though.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No, because in the end, your BS was so thick that it really doesn't matter what anyone says. Facts are that Bush can't win, you're right; except he's the one that put himself in a no-win situation. Yes, they do exist, and Iraq is it. Deal with it.
Yes. Facts are facts, but usually only at AT P&N and the other websites that find themselves on the left side of the political spectrum.

Whether Bush "wins" or not depends on your reference frame. When viewed through the reference frame of this forum, Bush can never win. However, to tell the truth, I don't find this forum to be any sort of reflection of public opinion. It's kind of scary that a few in here appear to think it is though.

Statistics over the past 18 months says my opinion on the war (WRT to pulling troops out, ranging from immediate pullout to gradual pull-out) is supported by a supermajority of Americans; anywhere from 60%-70%, generally just shy of 2/3rds. That has been the reality for well over a year.

So, I find your contention, well, just sad really, because these are well known numbers even if you're just a casual reader.
 

Summitdrinker

Golden Member
May 10, 2004
1,193
0
0
what a joke, amazing

the troop surge works he claims, so we MAY reduce troops by 30,000 but the middle of next summer

sounds like stay the course to me with a new sugar coating

if the troop surge worked/works why not get them out before that
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No, because in the end, your BS was so thick that it really doesn't matter what anyone says. Facts are that Bush can't win, you're right; except he's the one that put himself in a no-win situation. Yes, they do exist, and Iraq is it. Deal with it.
Yes. Facts are facts, but usually only at AT P&N and the other websites that find themselves on the left side of the political spectrum.

Whether Bush "wins" or not depends on your reference frame. When viewed through the reference frame of this forum, Bush can never win. However, to tell the truth, I don't find this forum to be any sort of reflection of public opinion. It's kind of scary that a few in here appear to think it is though.

Statistics over the past 18 months says my opinion on the war (WRT to pulling troops out, ranging from immediate pullout to gradual pull-out) is supported by a supermajority of Americans; anywhere from 60%-70%, generally just shy of 2/3rds. That has been the reality for well over a year.

So, I find your contention, well, just sad really, because these are well known numbers even if you're just a casual reader.
That's great. Those numbers don't really say much though. How many Americans want us to leave before the job is finished in Iraq? I seriously doubt public opinion would match the opinion in this forum.
 

Summitdrinker

Golden Member
May 10, 2004
1,193
0
0
really it's saying things aren't going very well in Iraq, were buried there

I say lets packup in less than 6 months and send some of the troops to afghan were they belong in the first place
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No, because in the end, your BS was so thick that it really doesn't matter what anyone says. Facts are that Bush can't win, you're right; except he's the one that put himself in a no-win situation. Yes, they do exist, and Iraq is it. Deal with it.
Yes. Facts are facts, but usually only at AT P&N and the other websites that find themselves on the left side of the political spectrum.

Whether Bush "wins" or not depends on your reference frame. When viewed through the reference frame of this forum, Bush can never win. However, to tell the truth, I don't find this forum to be any sort of reflection of public opinion. It's kind of scary that a few in here appear to think it is though.

Statistics over the past 18 months says my opinion on the war (WRT to pulling troops out, ranging from immediate pullout to gradual pull-out) is supported by a supermajority of Americans; anywhere from 60%-70%, generally just shy of 2/3rds. That has been the reality for well over a year.

So, I find your contention, well, just sad really, because these are well known numbers even if you're just a casual reader.
That's great. Those numbers don't really say much though. How many Americans want us to leave before the job is finished in Iraq? I seriously doubt public opinion would match the opinion in this forum.

Huh? You seem to be under the impression that there is a reasonable, variegated and well thought-out strategy in Iraq that would make Americans believe there is hope in "finishing a job", the definition which changes seemingly every year with this Administration. From WMDs, to war on terror, to stabilizing Iraq. There is always a new emphasis, and a new failure. The American people don't trust the Adminstration anymore. They don't trust politicians in general, but the administration most of all, Republicans 2nd most, and Dems 3rd most.

Again, everyone I say here is fact backed up by statistics and reflected in the opinions of BOTH P&R and the American public. Your contention is specious and you know it (if you don't, you're just not even attempting to be honest, really, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, and doing a poor job I might add).
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Sorry, but Nansy Pelosi isnt very credible. She's like the National Enquirer of the senate.

House or Congress are valid but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not in the Senate.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Huh? You seem to be under the impression that there is a reasonable, variegated and well thought-out strategy in Iraq that would make Americans believe there is hope in "finishing a job", the definition which changes seemingly every year with this Administration. From WMDs, to war on terror, to stabilizing Iraq. There is always a new emphasis, and a new failure. The American people don't trust the Adminstration anymore. They don't trust politicians in general, but the administration most of all, Republicans 2nd most, and Dems 3rd most.

Again, everyone I say here is fact backed up by statistics and reflected in the opinions of BOTH P&R and the American public. Your contention is specious and you know it (if you don't, you're just not even attempting to be honest, really, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, and doing a poor job I might add).
Anyone who actually thinks P&N is a reflection of American public opinion is either delusional or doesn't get out enough.

You didn't address my statement either. How many Americans want us to leave before the job is finished in Iraq? I seriously doubt public opinion would match the opinion in this forum.

I guess we could find out by starting a poll but my statements have already polluted possible opinion. Certain people might not vote their true feelings on the subject just to skew the poll and be spiteful little trollistas. Of course, it's not as if we really need a poll because many in here have already made their feelings very clear on the subject.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Huh? You seem to be under the impression that there is a reasonable, variegated and well thought-out strategy in Iraq that would make Americans believe there is hope in "finishing a job", the definition which changes seemingly every year with this Administration. From WMDs, to war on terror, to stabilizing Iraq. There is always a new emphasis, and a new failure. The American people don't trust the Adminstration anymore. They don't trust politicians in general, but the administration most of all, Republicans 2nd most, and Dems 3rd most.

Again, everyone I say here is fact backed up by statistics and reflected in the opinions of BOTH P&R and the American public. Your contention is specious and you know it (if you don't, you're just not even attempting to be honest, really, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, and doing a poor job I might add).
Anyone who actually thinks P&N is a reflection of American public opinion is either delusional or doesn't get out enough.

You didn't address my statement either. How many Americans want us to leave before the job is finished in Iraq? I seriously doubt public opinion would match the opinion in this forum.

I guess we could find out by starting a poll but my statements have already polluted possible opinion. Certain people might not vote their true feelings on the subject just to skew the poll and be spiteful little trollistas. Of course, it's not as if we really need a poll because many in here have already made their feelings very clear on the subject.

I can't help you if you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I already answered your "finish the job" question; many Americans don't believe there is any more important job than leaving Iraq, by a supermajority nearly. I gave my reasoning; that they have come to trust the Bush administration less and less as their goals, year by year, continue to fail to reach fruition, or just seem to fail utterly.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Huh? You seem to be under the impression that there is a reasonable, variegated and well thought-out strategy in Iraq that would make Americans believe there is hope in "finishing a job", the definition which changes seemingly every year with this Administration. From WMDs, to war on terror, to stabilizing Iraq. There is always a new emphasis, and a new failure. The American people don't trust the Adminstration anymore. They don't trust politicians in general, but the administration most of all, Republicans 2nd most, and Dems 3rd most.

Again, everyone I say here is fact backed up by statistics and reflected in the opinions of BOTH P&R and the American public. Your contention is specious and you know it (if you don't, you're just not even attempting to be honest, really, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, and doing a poor job I might add).
Anyone who actually thinks P&N is a reflection of American public opinion is either delusional or doesn't get out enough.

You didn't address my statement either. How many Americans want us to leave before the job is finished in Iraq? I seriously doubt public opinion would match the opinion in this forum.

I guess we could find out by starting a poll but my statements have already polluted possible opinion. Certain people might not vote their true feelings on the subject just to skew the poll and be spiteful little trollistas. Of course, it's not as if we really need a poll because many in here have already made their feelings very clear on the subject.

I can't help you if you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I already answered your "finish the job" question; many Americans don't believe there is any more important job than leaving Iraq, by a supermajority nearly. I gave my reasoning; that they have come to trust the Bush administration less and less as their goals, year by year, continue to fail to reach fruition, or just seem to fail utterly.
Really?

Well fortunately a new poll came out recently that throws some freezing cold water on your claim:

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDAr...spx?id=264035762651225

Many Democrats and now some Republicans are calling for America's withdrawal from Iraq. But as President Bush made clear with his veto of a war-funding bill that included a timetable for withdrawal, a pullout isn't likely.

That, however, hasn't stopped critics from insisting that our soldiers come home and proclaiming ? as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did ? that "this war is lost."

For its part, the White House has warned that leaving Iraq before it has been stabilized would likely cause, as spokeswoman Dana Perino put it, the collapse of the "fragile young Iraqi democracy (and) the killing of countless innocent civilians."

It also would provide a "safe haven" from which al-Qaida and other terrorist groups could mount attacks against Americans and others it deems enemies of their ideology, the White House says.

On these points, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll, Americans side with the White House.

A majority (54%) of the 903 adults surveyed last week disagree with Reid's assessment that the war is lost, with 30% disagreeing "strongly." Meanwhile, 78% say Iraq should be stabilized before troops are withdrawn. Fully 48% believe this is "very important."

In short, the idea of stabilizing Iraq before withdrawing troops has universal appeal, and the idea could potentially unify support behind the president.

In fact, our poll shows this concept appeals not only to Republicans, 91% of whom agree with it, and Independents (80%), but to a solid majority of Democrats (66%). Even those who believe we have lost the war believe stabilization is important.

To recapture public support, therefore, President Bush might consider casting the current and immediate-future phases of the war in terms of stabilization rather than victory or defeat. This stabilization aspect is key and must be accentuated.

Stabilization takes on added importance considering that the president does not favor a deadline. Such a deadline, he said recently, would be setting a deadline for failure. But a majority of Americans (54%) do not agree with him on this point. While most Republicans (62%) oppose a deadline, 65% of Democrats and 56% of Independents prefer that one be set.

The deadline is attractive to some because it could ensure the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. Others believe a deadline can be used to pressure Iraqis to get their act together.

Staying in Iraq, however, is contingent on our ability to affect a positive outcome. Can we do it? If you ask the president, the answer is "yes," and his optimism that the U.S. will succeed in Iraq is shared by 56% of the public.

But that percentage is down from 58% in February, when we asked the same question, and 60% last December. Only 42% of Democrats and 49% of Independents think we'll succeed, next to 80% of Republicans.

Similarly, 61% of Americans believe victory in Iraq is "important," compared with 65% in February and 66% in December. Independents (61%) align with Republicans (84%) here vs. 44% of Democrats who don't think victory is important.

For years now, everyone's been talking about a "global war on terror," a phrase first popularized by President Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. More recently, however, the appropriateness of this phrase has come under attack.

This was apparent during the recent debate among Democratic presidential candidates. When moderator Brian Williams asked, "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror," only four of the eight candidates ? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd ? raised their hands. John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel kept their hands down.

Even one of our strongest allies, the United Kingdom, has decided to scrap the phrase. According to Hilary Benn of the governing Labour Party:

"We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. It is the vast majority of the people in the world ? of all nationalities and faiths ? against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger."

Americans don't buy that, however. Two-thirds think we're fighting a global war on terror, including 52% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 65% of Independents.

Our poll also reveals a potential for backlash if Congress projects its authority on how the war is conducted. In fact, Americans are decidedly against Congress' meddling. Asked whom they'd like to see the president rely on more for advice on the conduct of war, fully 71% preferred field commanders and just 23% favored Congress.

What's more, any meddling may be perceived as motivated by political gain rather than by genuine concern. Sen. Clinton, for example, recently called for a repeal of the authorization the Congress gave the president to go to Iraq. But nearly three of five (59%) of those polled believe that any such proposal would send the wrong signal to our troops.

Mayur is the president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, IBD's polling partner.
Now tell me those numbers are anything close to what the regular rabble in here believe? Hell, I'm not even sure this forum would even poll close to what the Democrats did on those issues, which shows you how far left this place is.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Sorry, but Nansy Pelosi isnt very credible. She's like the National Enquirer of the senate.

What the hell do you mean, she is not credible? Can you link some articles to her saying space aliens are behind Al Queda or something, or are you just mouthing propaganda fed to you?

Why do so many people have such blurry foundations for these attacking opinions of leaders they disagree with? It's like when I talk with right-wingers who have never seen a second of a Michal Moore film who have all kinds of opinions about just how terrible they are. I could even go with that if they had some solid info from other sources, but they almost never do, it's just they were told he's 'the enemy' and they then parrot it. Doesn't matter who it is, any liberal leader gets the same treatment.

And you say *she's* not credible similar to the National Enquirer? Who is the one who sounds like the National Enquirer, as you make claims with as little reason as they do?

Given her track record of voting, I wouldnt believe a word out of her mouth. I posted about this very thing a few months ago when I was discrediting Pelosi so not going to do it again (sorry, not intentionally pulling a Dave), but throughout her career she is the posterchild of say one thing vote another. Sure there are exceptions, but it happens so frequently it's the rule, not the exception. Anyway.
Here's Mr IThinkIllBecomeARepublican's stab at discrediting Pelosi. link Try not to laugh too hard.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Even if Pelosi and Reid may or may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer, bashing them is about as productive as bashing GWB&co. It play with one church choir and not the other. Nor IMO, will what amounts to the maybe or maybe not troop cuts offered up on the alter of bait and switch.

I also think, that the much anticipated Patraeus report is another draw, the American people are getting long past tired of all the songs and dances, and the onus will be on GWB&co. to come up with some results more concrete than maybe IF.

As the GWB choir gets smaller and smaller because of lack of results, the rallying cry of blame dimocrats will begin to look more and more counterproductive as it plays to an ever smaller choir.

Get a clue, the only way to build the stay in Iraq choir is to deliver results. Political spin excuses are getting thinner and thinner by the day.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,300
126
gawd.. what a shell game bushy is doing.

the ~30k "surge" troops that were suppose to only be around for a couple of months are staying till 2008.

and if bushy's troop reduction is 30k, then guess what. he didnt do squat! he's just sending home the boys that were suppose to have been sent home already.

early 2007: bushy to congress- these 30k surge troops are just temporary

Sept 2007: bushy to everyone- look ma... troops reductions. nevermind it's the same 30k that were only suppose to be temporary

talk about double accounting!
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Huh? You seem to be under the impression that there is a reasonable, variegated and well thought-out strategy in Iraq that would make Americans believe there is hope in "finishing a job", the definition which changes seemingly every year with this Administration. From WMDs, to war on terror, to stabilizing Iraq. There is always a new emphasis, and a new failure. The American people don't trust the Adminstration anymore. They don't trust politicians in general, but the administration most of all, Republicans 2nd most, and Dems 3rd most.

Again, everyone I say here is fact backed up by statistics and reflected in the opinions of BOTH P&R and the American public. Your contention is specious and you know it (if you don't, you're just not even attempting to be honest, really, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, and doing a poor job I might add).
Anyone who actually thinks P&N is a reflection of American public opinion is either delusional or doesn't get out enough.

You didn't address my statement either. How many Americans want us to leave before the job is finished in Iraq? I seriously doubt public opinion would match the opinion in this forum.

I guess we could find out by starting a poll but my statements have already polluted possible opinion. Certain people might not vote their true feelings on the subject just to skew the poll and be spiteful little trollistas. Of course, it's not as if we really need a poll because many in here have already made their feelings very clear on the subject.

I can't help you if you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I already answered your "finish the job" question; many Americans don't believe there is any more important job than leaving Iraq, by a supermajority nearly. I gave my reasoning; that they have come to trust the Bush administration less and less as their goals, year by year, continue to fail to reach fruition, or just seem to fail utterly.
Really?

Well fortunately a new poll came out recently that throws some freezing cold water on your claim:

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDAr...spx?id=264035762651225

Many Democrats and now some Republicans are calling for America's withdrawal from Iraq. But as President Bush made clear with his veto of a war-funding bill that included a timetable for withdrawal, a pullout isn't likely.

That, however, hasn't stopped critics from insisting that our soldiers come home and proclaiming ? as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did ? that "this war is lost."

For its part, the White House has warned that leaving Iraq before it has been stabilized would likely cause, as spokeswoman Dana Perino put it, the collapse of the "fragile young Iraqi democracy (and) the killing of countless innocent civilians."

It also would provide a "safe haven" from which al-Qaida and other terrorist groups could mount attacks against Americans and others it deems enemies of their ideology, the White House says.

On these points, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll, Americans side with the White House.

A majority (54%) of the 903 adults surveyed last week disagree with Reid's assessment that the war is lost, with 30% disagreeing "strongly." Meanwhile, 78% say Iraq should be stabilized before troops are withdrawn. Fully 48% believe this is "very important."

In short, the idea of stabilizing Iraq before withdrawing troops has universal appeal, and the idea could potentially unify support behind the president.

In fact, our poll shows this concept appeals not only to Republicans, 91% of whom agree with it, and Independents (80%), but to a solid majority of Democrats (66%). Even those who believe we have lost the war believe stabilization is important.

To recapture public support, therefore, President Bush might consider casting the current and immediate-future phases of the war in terms of stabilization rather than victory or defeat. This stabilization aspect is key and must be accentuated.

Stabilization takes on added importance considering that the president does not favor a deadline. Such a deadline, he said recently, would be setting a deadline for failure. But a majority of Americans (54%) do not agree with him on this point. While most Republicans (62%) oppose a deadline, 65% of Democrats and 56% of Independents prefer that one be set.

The deadline is attractive to some because it could ensure the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. Others believe a deadline can be used to pressure Iraqis to get their act together.

Staying in Iraq, however, is contingent on our ability to affect a positive outcome. Can we do it? If you ask the president, the answer is "yes," and his optimism that the U.S. will succeed in Iraq is shared by 56% of the public.

But that percentage is down from 58% in February, when we asked the same question, and 60% last December. Only 42% of Democrats and 49% of Independents think we'll succeed, next to 80% of Republicans.

Similarly, 61% of Americans believe victory in Iraq is "important," compared with 65% in February and 66% in December. Independents (61%) align with Republicans (84%) here vs. 44% of Democrats who don't think victory is important.

For years now, everyone's been talking about a "global war on terror," a phrase first popularized by President Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. More recently, however, the appropriateness of this phrase has come under attack.

This was apparent during the recent debate among Democratic presidential candidates. When moderator Brian Williams asked, "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror," only four of the eight candidates ? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd ? raised their hands. John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel kept their hands down.

Even one of our strongest allies, the United Kingdom, has decided to scrap the phrase. According to Hilary Benn of the governing Labour Party:

"We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. It is the vast majority of the people in the world ? of all nationalities and faiths ? against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger."

Americans don't buy that, however. Two-thirds think we're fighting a global war on terror, including 52% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 65% of Independents.

Our poll also reveals a potential for backlash if Congress projects its authority on how the war is conducted. In fact, Americans are decidedly against Congress' meddling. Asked whom they'd like to see the president rely on more for advice on the conduct of war, fully 71% preferred field commanders and just 23% favored Congress.

What's more, any meddling may be perceived as motivated by political gain rather than by genuine concern. Sen. Clinton, for example, recently called for a repeal of the authorization the Congress gave the president to go to Iraq. But nearly three of five (59%) of those polled believe that any such proposal would send the wrong signal to our troops.

Mayur is the president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, IBD's polling partner.
Now tell me those numbers are anything close to what the regular rabble in here believe? Hell, I'm not even sure this forum would even poll close to what the Democrats did on those issues, which shows you how far left this place is.

Lord you are horrid are interpreting statistics. Yes, those numbers support what I've been saying.

"In short, the idea of stabilizing Iraq before withdrawing troops has universal appeal, and the idea could potentially unify support behind the president. In fact, our poll shows this concept appeals not only to Republicans, 91% of whom agree with it, and Independents (80%), but to a solid majority of Democrats (66%). Even those who believe we have lost the war believe stabilization is important."

Notice the paragraph above; few people are under the delusion that a destablized Iraq isn't bad, the difference is that many disagree on HOW stable the country is now and HOW stable a condition it can be left in without major consequences. MOST people don't just want to withdraw and leave it a bloody mess, and poll results show that. However, as poll results also show, most Americans are OPPOSED to the war and are in favor of leaving Iraq as soon as possible, while the minority (like palehorse) believe we're going to have to be there for decades. That is unacceptable, and is why Bush won't give deadlines because it would be political suicide to openly admit his true feelings; that if he had his way we'd be there for the long haul and certainly won't leave as long as he's in power. THAT is why he won't give a deadline for complete withdrawal; because in his world it's not an option. To strengthen his position he simply uses the accusation "embolden the terrorists" to justify not giving a timeline, but in reality it has nothing to do with emboldening anyone.

I mean seriously now, did you actually believe any of the comments you posted on those statistics? Be honest.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Huh? You seem to be under the impression that there is a reasonable, variegated and well thought-out strategy in Iraq that would make Americans believe there is hope in "finishing a job", the definition which changes seemingly every year with this Administration. From WMDs, to war on terror, to stabilizing Iraq. There is always a new emphasis, and a new failure. The American people don't trust the Adminstration anymore. They don't trust politicians in general, but the administration most of all, Republicans 2nd most, and Dems 3rd most.

Again, everyone I say here is fact backed up by statistics and reflected in the opinions of BOTH P&R and the American public. Your contention is specious and you know it (if you don't, you're just not even attempting to be honest, really, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, and doing a poor job I might add).
Anyone who actually thinks P&N is a reflection of American public opinion is either delusional or doesn't get out enough.

You didn't address my statement either. How many Americans want us to leave before the job is finished in Iraq? I seriously doubt public opinion would match the opinion in this forum.

I guess we could find out by starting a poll but my statements have already polluted possible opinion. Certain people might not vote their true feelings on the subject just to skew the poll and be spiteful little trollistas. Of course, it's not as if we really need a poll because many in here have already made their feelings very clear on the subject.

I can't help you if you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I already answered your "finish the job" question; many Americans don't believe there is any more important job than leaving Iraq, by a supermajority nearly. I gave my reasoning; that they have come to trust the Bush administration less and less as their goals, year by year, continue to fail to reach fruition, or just seem to fail utterly.
Really?

Well fortunately a new poll came out recently that throws some freezing cold water on your claim:

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDAr...spx?id=264035762651225

Many Democrats and now some Republicans are calling for America's withdrawal from Iraq. But as President Bush made clear with his veto of a war-funding bill that included a timetable for withdrawal, a pullout isn't likely.

That, however, hasn't stopped critics from insisting that our soldiers come home and proclaiming ? as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did ? that "this war is lost."

For its part, the White House has warned that leaving Iraq before it has been stabilized would likely cause, as spokeswoman Dana Perino put it, the collapse of the "fragile young Iraqi democracy (and) the killing of countless innocent civilians."

It also would provide a "safe haven" from which al-Qaida and other terrorist groups could mount attacks against Americans and others it deems enemies of their ideology, the White House says.

On these points, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll, Americans side with the White House.

A majority (54%) of the 903 adults surveyed last week disagree with Reid's assessment that the war is lost, with 30% disagreeing "strongly." Meanwhile, 78% say Iraq should be stabilized before troops are withdrawn. Fully 48% believe this is "very important."

In short, the idea of stabilizing Iraq before withdrawing troops has universal appeal, and the idea could potentially unify support behind the president.

In fact, our poll shows this concept appeals not only to Republicans, 91% of whom agree with it, and Independents (80%), but to a solid majority of Democrats (66%). Even those who believe we have lost the war believe stabilization is important.

To recapture public support, therefore, President Bush might consider casting the current and immediate-future phases of the war in terms of stabilization rather than victory or defeat. This stabilization aspect is key and must be accentuated.

Stabilization takes on added importance considering that the president does not favor a deadline. Such a deadline, he said recently, would be setting a deadline for failure. But a majority of Americans (54%) do not agree with him on this point. While most Republicans (62%) oppose a deadline, 65% of Democrats and 56% of Independents prefer that one be set.

The deadline is attractive to some because it could ensure the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. Others believe a deadline can be used to pressure Iraqis to get their act together.

Staying in Iraq, however, is contingent on our ability to affect a positive outcome. Can we do it? If you ask the president, the answer is "yes," and his optimism that the U.S. will succeed in Iraq is shared by 56% of the public.

But that percentage is down from 58% in February, when we asked the same question, and 60% last December. Only 42% of Democrats and 49% of Independents think we'll succeed, next to 80% of Republicans.

Similarly, 61% of Americans believe victory in Iraq is "important," compared with 65% in February and 66% in December. Independents (61%) align with Republicans (84%) here vs. 44% of Democrats who don't think victory is important.

For years now, everyone's been talking about a "global war on terror," a phrase first popularized by President Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. More recently, however, the appropriateness of this phrase has come under attack.

This was apparent during the recent debate among Democratic presidential candidates. When moderator Brian Williams asked, "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror," only four of the eight candidates ? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd ? raised their hands. John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel kept their hands down.

Even one of our strongest allies, the United Kingdom, has decided to scrap the phrase. According to Hilary Benn of the governing Labour Party:

"We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. It is the vast majority of the people in the world ? of all nationalities and faiths ? against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger."

Americans don't buy that, however. Two-thirds think we're fighting a global war on terror, including 52% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 65% of Independents.

Our poll also reveals a potential for backlash if Congress projects its authority on how the war is conducted. In fact, Americans are decidedly against Congress' meddling. Asked whom they'd like to see the president rely on more for advice on the conduct of war, fully 71% preferred field commanders and just 23% favored Congress.

What's more, any meddling may be perceived as motivated by political gain rather than by genuine concern. Sen. Clinton, for example, recently called for a repeal of the authorization the Congress gave the president to go to Iraq. But nearly three of five (59%) of those polled believe that any such proposal would send the wrong signal to our troops.

Mayur is the president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, IBD's polling partner.
Now tell me those numbers are anything close to what the regular rabble in here believe? Hell, I'm not even sure this forum would even poll close to what the Democrats did on those issues, which shows you how far left this place is.

Lord you are horrid are interpreting statistics. Yes, those numbers support what I've been saying.

"In short, the idea of stabilizing Iraq before withdrawing troops has universal appeal, and the idea could potentially unify support behind the president. In fact, our poll shows this concept appeals not only to Republicans, 91% of whom agree with it, and Independents (80%), but to a solid majority of Democrats (66%). Even those who believe we have lost the war believe stabilization is important."

Notice the paragraph above; few people are under the delusion that a destablized Iraq isn't bad, the difference is that many disagree on HOW stable the country is now and HOW stable a condition it can be left in without major consequences. MOST people don't just want to withdraw and leave it a bloody mess, and poll results show that. However, as poll results also show, most Americans are OPPOSED to the war and are in favor of leaving Iraq as soon as possible, while the minority (like palehorse) believe we're going to have to be there for decades. That is unacceptable, and is why Bush won't give deadlines because it would be political suicide to openly admit his true feelings; that if he had his way we'd be there for the long haul and certainly won't leave as long as he's in power. THAT is why he won't give a deadline for complete withdrawal; because in his world it's not an option. To strengthen his position he simply uses the accusation "embolden the terrorists" to justify not giving a timeline, but in reality it has nothing to do with emboldening anyone.

I mean seriously now, did you actually believe any of the comments you posted on those statistics? Be honest.
What are you talking about? There isn't a whole lot to interpret. Nor is our discussion really about statistics, but instead is about opinion. You seem to keep losing sight of that fact.

Let's look at the following poll finding.

"A majority (54%) of the 903 adults surveyed last week disagree with Reid's assessment that the war is lost, with 30% disagreeing "strongly." Meanwhile, 78% say Iraq should be stabilized before troops are withdrawn. Fully 48% believe this is "very important."

In short, the idea of stabilizing Iraq before withdrawing troops has universal appeal, and the idea could potentially unify support behind the president."

If you think that percentage is even close to the same opinion among the P&N regulars then you haven't been paying the least bit of attemtion whatsoever to prevalent opinion in here. It sure doesn't appear to match YOUR opinion.

Or do you agree with the majority above? From what I've seen you post you don't and your personal opinion is also the majority opinion here in P&N. But that opinion doesn't match US public opinion.

Why you keep denying the obvious is a mystery. Who do you think you're fooling?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
How silly, TLC. The fact that Bush and his fanbois are representing the surge as some sort of victory allowing troop withdrawals when it's not is the reason they're getting hammered.

It's kinda like setting a time to quit gambling at the casino, then claiming you quit at the designated time because you won- regardless of the amount of money you have left...

We'll see what's been won when the surge ends next July... odds are that it won't be much, if anything at all...
It has to get better in Iraq. After all, it's a disaster, chaos, a quagmire, "We have already lost."

If that's the case it can't possibly get get any worse. There's nowhere to go but up.

Wrong again, there is one place left to go, out. We can't win a religious civil war. Who's side do you suggest we take?
 

randym431

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2003
1,270
1
0
Rice was on Today show 9/12. It occurred to me that GW is not only in a lost cause with the war, they are in a lost cause trying to sell it.
The country is against it. So where do these "politicians" get off going their "own" direction with the country??? Against the will of the people. Who in the hell do they think they are?

We're right, you're wrong mentality. A few people in power, doing it "their" way come what may.

When did these people in power think "THEY" are "we the people"???
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The war was "sold" some years ago.

What people are complaining about now is the "No Returns" policy.

If necessary the no returns policy will be issued for congress in 11/2008 if they don't get the message of 11/2006. But it does not look it will take that long as congress is indeed asserting its ability to force GWB into that return policy TLC thinks won't happen.

But I just got back from yahoo news and it does look like the democrats are not going to buy the Patraeus report period. And are going to switch policy to some sort of hybrid of the Murtha, Lugar, Warner plan that will start to greatly limit the role of US troops in Iraq while
limiting the ability of GWB to over deploy troops without adequate time between deployments. With the stated goal being to peel off enough Republicans to get to a veto proof 60 votes.

We indeed may see a beginning of the end for Iraq. Or ar least the democratic strategy may change
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
How silly, TLC. The fact that Bush and his fanbois are representing the surge as some sort of victory allowing troop withdrawals when it's not is the reason they're getting hammered.

It's kinda like setting a time to quit gambling at the casino, then claiming you quit at the designated time because you won- regardless of the amount of money you have left...

We'll see what's been won when the surge ends next July... odds are that it won't be much, if anything at all...
It has to get better in Iraq. After all, it's a disaster, chaos, a quagmire, "We have already lost."

If that's the case it can't possibly get get any worse. There's nowhere to go but up.

Wrong again, there is one place left to go, out. We can't win a religious civil war. Who's side do you suggest we take?


Ahem?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Or to put it another way, the war may have been sold many years ago, and now its a question if the people saying, sorry you bought the war and no refunds, will keep getting their way while failing to make the progress they promised when they sold the war. Its kind of a no brainer that is a losing game and unsustainable policy.

And worse yet, the no refunds question can and is likely to get blunted by opponents saying your authorization to continue is hereby revoked, thereby acknowledging that the constitutional power to wage war always belonged to congress. And the original congressional resolution to use force as a last resort is not infinitely long, totally broad, and thus the congress that authorized the President to borrow the military can call in the loan at any time.

I somewhat wonder if a resolution to continue to authorize GWB&co. to fight the war "as they see fit" might be floated. And if it fails to get the 51 Senate votes and a majority of house votes, it might constitute a congressional rejection of any continued Presidential authorization.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
How silly, TLC. The fact that Bush and his fanbois are representing the surge as some sort of victory allowing troop withdrawals when it's not is the reason they're getting hammered.

It's kinda like setting a time to quit gambling at the casino, then claiming you quit at the designated time because you won- regardless of the amount of money you have left...

We'll see what's been won when the surge ends next July... odds are that it won't be much, if anything at all...
It has to get better in Iraq. After all, it's a disaster, chaos, a quagmire, "We have already lost."

If that's the case it can't possibly get get any worse. There's nowhere to go but up.

Wrong again, there is one place left to go, out. We can't win a religious civil war. Who's side do you suggest we take?


Ahem?
The only religious war I'm aware of is the one the jihadis are fighting against the west. So, naturally, I'm on our side.

You?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
How silly, TLC. The fact that Bush and his fanbois are representing the surge as some sort of victory allowing troop withdrawals when it's not is the reason they're getting hammered.

It's kinda like setting a time to quit gambling at the casino, then claiming you quit at the designated time because you won- regardless of the amount of money you have left...

We'll see what's been won when the surge ends next July... odds are that it won't be much, if anything at all...
It has to get better in Iraq. After all, it's a disaster, chaos, a quagmire, "We have already lost."

If that's the case it can't possibly get get any worse. There's nowhere to go but up.

Wrong again, there is one place left to go, out. We can't win a religious civil war. Who's side do you suggest we take?


Ahem?
The only religious war I'm aware of is the one the jihadis are fighting against the west. So, naturally, I'm on our side.

You?

Then what seems to be the hold up to any political progress in Iraq? Not enough troops, not enough money, stupid leadership, lack of strategy? What is the hold up? Why can't they get an army and police force trained after over 4 years to do their own fighting?

Who's fooling nobody but themself? Who spins like a top? Look in a mirror, though your spinning so fast you won't recognize the image, it is you in there, hiding from the truth.

Not that I was expecting one, but you can't give a straight answer to a straight question, can you.

:cookie:



 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
How silly, TLC. The fact that Bush and his fanbois are representing the surge as some sort of victory allowing troop withdrawals when it's not is the reason they're getting hammered.

It's kinda like setting a time to quit gambling at the casino, then claiming you quit at the designated time because you won- regardless of the amount of money you have left...

We'll see what's been won when the surge ends next July... odds are that it won't be much, if anything at all...
It has to get better in Iraq. After all, it's a disaster, chaos, a quagmire, "We have already lost."

If that's the case it can't possibly get get any worse. There's nowhere to go but up.

Wrong again, there is one place left to go, out. We can't win a religious civil war. Who's side do you suggest we take?


Ahem?
The only religious war I'm aware of is the one the jihadis are fighting against the west. So, naturally, I'm on our side.

You?

Then what seems to be the hold up to any political progress in Iraq? Not enough troops, not enough money, stupid leadership, lack of strategy? What is the hold up? Why can't they get an army and police force trained after over 4 years to do their own fighting?

Who's fooling nobody but themself? Who spins like a top? Look in a mirror, though your spinning so fast you won't recognize the image, it is you in there, hiding from the truth.

Not that I was expecting one, but you can't give a straight answer to a straight question, can you.

:cookie:
Please tell me exactly why you feel that you deserve a straight answer to a crooked question?