America is waking up - new polls

[RickSp]

Buried in an article about the likely impact of Foley on the upcoming election is an intriguing poll result.
Foley Scandal Is Hurting G.O.P.’s Image, Poll Finds

83 percent of respondents thought that Mr. Bush was either hiding something or mostly lying when he discussed how the war in Iraq was going. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said Mr. Bush was personally aware of pre-9/11 intelligence reports that warned of possible domestic terrorist attacks using airplanes. The public’s view of Iraq is as dark as it has been since the war began in 2003: two-thirds said the war was going somewhat or very badly, while only 3 percent said it was going very well. Two-thirds said they disapprove of how Mr. Bush is handling Iraq. Mr. Bush’s job approval has slipped to 34 percent, one of the lowest levels of his presidency, posing a complication for the White House as it seeks to send him out on the road to rally the Republican base voters. Mr. Bush’s job approval rating has even slipped with his base: 75 percent of conservative Republicans approve of the way he has handled his job, compared with 96 percent in November 2004.

83% of Americans do not trust the president on a major of the day. That is an amazing figure. Are American finally waking up to the madman in the White House?

[shield772]

I would not classify him as a mad man, I supported going into Iraq, I support what we have done there, now that said we need out, we need an exit strategy, and we need it soon.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: shield772 I would not classify him as a mad man, I supported going into Iraq, I support what we have done there, now that said we need out, we need an exit strategy, and we need it soon.

May I ask what you would use as a justification for invading Iraq?

[shield772]

Well we aren't Invaders we are liberators, Hussein was materialy supporting terrorist attacks in Isreal specifically and terrorism in general, he was a threat to the region and his own people, and I know you will now say that GW is doing the same thing and I do not agree with that and it is just a silly claim.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: shield772 Well we aren't Invaders we are liberators, Hussein was materialy supporting terrorist attacks in Isreal specifically and terrorism in general, he was a threat to the region and his own people, and I know you will now say that GW is doing the same thing and I do not agree with that and it is just a silly claim.

Well that explains it, you are mad too.


How your political compass can show up as left of center I'll never know. Perhaps you weren't being honest with yourself when you took that test. What you are advocating here welll to the Right of ther numbers reflected in your signature.


I don't want to derail the whole thread, but if you are still buying that "liberator" line, I truly have no reason to debate that pont any further. Welcome to the ever shrinking percentage of people who will believe anything the President says.

[bishop]

Quote by: Milton Bradley May I ask what you would use as a justification for invading Iraq?

in my case, i believed the bullshit. at the time, it seemed very compelling imo.

[rmnunez]

what you would use as a justification for invading Iraq?

Now I wouldn't use the WMD threat since its been disproven, but when the decision was made this wasn't as evident.

I think the humanitarian situation could provide a good justification, some estimates calculate over 300 thousand Iraqis buried in mass graves, WMDs were used against the Kurds, maybe the story of the human shredder didn't pan out, but there were plenty of other reports of outrageous treatment of dissidents, acts of violent repression, refugees fleeing the place.

"Threats to international peace and security" justify the use of force under the UN Charter and there were threats to neighbors, Saddam actually invaded Kuwait and had a full-blown war with Iran for over a decade. He maintained a substantial armed force and had antagonistic relations with Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Another justification might be found in the continued breach of every pertinent UN Security Council resolution. Though breach of UN resolutions doesn't seem to justify use of force under many people's views, perhaps considering there were many breaches and that these were of Security Council Resolutions implemented to enforce a ceasefire, this would seem more justifiable.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop in my case, i believed the bullshit. at the time, it seemed very compelling imo.

Virtually everyone from Fox to the Washington Post was parroting the same line. The New York Times was printing Judy Miller's prepackaged fantasies straight from the White House. The Bush administration claimed that Saddam was actively building nukes. That was scary. It was also turned out to be a lie. A lot of people were fooled. But the scam isn't working anymore.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: rmnunez Now I wouldn't use the WMD threat since its been disproven, but when the decision was made this wasn't as evident. I think the humanitarian situation could provide a good justification, some estimates calculate over 300 thousand Iraqis buried in mass graves, WMDs were used against the Kurds, maybe the story of the human shredder didn't pan out, but there were plenty of other reports of outrageous treatment of dissidents, acts of violent repression, refugees fleeing the place. "Threats to international peace and security" justify the use of force under the UN Charter and there were threats to neighbors, Saddam actually invaded Kuwait and had a full-blown war with Iran for over a decade. He maintained a substantial armed force and had antagonistic relations with Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Another justification might be found in the continued breach of every pertinent UN Security Council resolution. Though breach of UN resolutions doesn't seem to justify use of force under many people's views, perhaps considering there were many breaches and that these were of Security Council Resolutions implemented to enforce a ceasefire, this would seem more justifiable.

You should run for office.


You sound just like GW. Commit ( what you obviously do not see as an ) attrocity, and then seek out any justification people will buy.


I call that a fascist tendency.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley May I ask what you would use as a justification for invading Iraq?

He wasn't the only one. The vast majority of America was for the war. The propaganda was strong.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Now I wouldn't use the WMD threat since its been disproven, but when the decision was made this wasn't as evident. I think the humanitarian situation could provide a good justification, some estimates calculate over 300 thousand Iraqis buried in mass graves, WMDs were used against the Kurds, maybe the story of the human shredder didn't pan out, but there were plenty of other reports of outrageous treatment of dissidents, acts of violent repression, refugees fleeing the place.

Do you see any irony in that the worst of Saddam's crime were committed while he was a US ally and with US support? (As has been pointed out too many times to count, Saddam used US helicopters to gas the Kurds.) Claiming the right to invade a sovereign country based on "humanitarian" issues to which the US was arguably an accomplice borders on the surreal.

Quote by: rmnunez "Threats to international peace and security" justify the use of force under the UN Charter and there were threats to neighbors, Saddam actually invaded Kuwait and had a full-blown war with Iran for over a decade. He maintained a substantial armed force and had antagonistic relations with Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Another justification might be found in the continued breach of every pertinent UN Security Council resolution. Though breach of UN resolutions doesn't seem to justify use of force under many people's views, perhaps considering there were many breaches and that these were of Security Council Resolutions implemented to enforce a ceasefire, this would seem more justifiable.

Using the UN Charter to justify violating the UN Charter by invading a soverign nation without UN approval is also aburdist, at best.

[underbear1]

Maybe if W wasn't trying to out shine his Daddy (who knew what a disaster invading Iraq would entail) we wouldn't be in this Oedipus tragedy played out globably. Maybe Daddy does know Best, which right after the election will be shown by Jim Baker coming in to rescue America from Cheney's and Rummy's MISTAKE!

[bishop]

Quote by: RickSp Virtually everyone from Fox to the Washington Post was parroting the same line. The New York Times was printing Judy Miller's prepackaged fantasies straight from the White House. The Bush administration claimed that Saddam was actively building nukes. That was scary. It was also turned out to be a lie. A lot of people were fooled. But the scam isn't working anymore.

powell's presentation at the u.n. was one of the most convincing pieces of the lie for me.. i, like many, believed him to be a man of his word - and i knew that he was the only force within the administration to urge caution over the issue. powell pressured him to take the issue to the u.n., etc... so, when powell spoke, i believed, much more than when our semi-retarded president and his shady cold war buddies gave us their war mongering rhetoric.

i never supported his decision to rush into the war though. i wanted to see the inspection process continue because it was the best deterrant policy imaginable - at little cost in money and life. there was no way saddam could've wiped his nose in that situation without us knowing about it.


i feel like the country's mood is the same now as it was in the 2004 elections... the only difference was that bush was able to get the bigots all hot and bothered over low priority issues like gay marriage. and then all that swift boat nonsense.... in other words, people drew their partisan lines in the sand, so the poll numbers appeared to be more supportive of bush and his policies. in actuality, it was just a bunch of fools caught up in campaign rhetoric.

you look at all the new polls coming out after the foley scandal and none of them indicate a real advantage for democrats. all they do suggest is that people are uneasy about the state of the nation. (i don't think that's new, despite what older polls may suggest.)

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp Do you see any irony in that the worst of Saddam's crime were committed while he was a US ally and with US support? (As has been pointed out too many times to count, Saddam used US helicopters to gas the Kurds.) Claiming the right to invade a sovereign country based on "humanitarian" issues to which the US was arguably an accomplice borders on the surreal. Using the UN Charter to justify violating the UN Charter by invading a soverign nation without UN approval is also aburdist, at best.

What is worse there are rumblings that the old tired "Domino Theory" is being brought from the closet to justify remaining in Iraq because the current fear mongering is that Iran will fill the power void when th US retreats. And now the North Korean threat is being added to the mix that NK will sell nuclear bombs to Iran. Will it ever end?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop n my case, i believed the bullshit. at the time, it seemed very compelling imo

I was never pro invasion, but I thought the action was justifiable up until UN Resolution 1441. After that, I had changed sides, and started percieving the that Iraq was Bush's answe to the Holy War he wants to start.


Saddam was the guy with his thumb on the radical, green scarf wearing brand of militant Islam that the US has desired to keep under wraps as long as I have been alive.


The proliferation of in violence in that area is directly related to the fact that the true radical elements were able to network only after Saddam had been removed from power, and the "insugency" that we see now is what many predictd would happen once that was understood.

Quote by: GHook93 He wasn't the only one. The vast majority of America was for the war. The propaganda was strong.

Oh, I certainly agree with that. The Office of Disinformation deserves a pat on the back for their vigilence, and dedication to the cause. Then they should be tried for their crimes against humanity.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rick said: 83% of Americans do not trust the president on a major of the day. That is an amazing figure. Are American finally waking up to the madman in the White House?

I say:
I think so Rick, since they are being forced to DIG for news in alternate sources. Once you start digging for facts, it is almost hard NOT to wake up to the lies that have been perpetrated as truth.