America Overwhelmingly Sides With Dems On Iraq, Damn That Harry Reid For Reflecting The National Consensus
Tweet
The nerve of that guy Harry Reid! Who does he think he represents? The people?
As the Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House clash over an Iraq spending bill, with President Bush vowing to veto it because it contains withdrawal deadlines, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats.
In addition, a nearly equal number believe that victory in Iraq isn’t possible, and about only one in eight think the war has improved in the three months since Bush called for a troop increase there.
Dear congressional Democrats: this is a clear sign that America does not want you to cave. You approved the money for the troops, along with a strategy to end the Republican-created mess in Iraq. If the president chooses to leave the troops stranded in Iraq without the equipment or strategy they need, it adds even more blood on his hands.
23 Responses to “America Overwhelmingly Sides With Dems On Iraq, Damn That Harry Reid For Reflecting The National Consensus”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
DUBAI (Reuters) Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:14am ET – Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is orchestrating militants’ operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior commander of Afghan Islamist group Taliban said in remarks broadcast on Wednesday.
—————————————————
Do the polls say where we should fight them? Suggestions?
Sen. Reid is the Majority Leader, not the majority follower. If I wanted a majority follower, I’d have written in Jon Stewart or Bill Maher.
Stevesh: The answer to that is obvious:
“Bring the boys home!”
“Halliburton!”
“AWWWWKKKK!” “AWWWWKKKK!”
Good point Frank. After Bush vetoes this bill I would like to see congress sending him one that gives plenty of money for vet’s health, armor and equipment for the troops, and enough funding for a year of operations in Iraq with no timetables. It should also cut all funding for contractors and mercenaries to 10% and mandate that Iraqi contractors be hired. Then watch as Bush vetoes that one too.
Here’s an idea for you steve: Instead of fighting the fight OBL wants, lets fight on our terms. Why should we do what he wants?
Well except that Sen. Reid passed this bill before polls came out because we had a referendum last year on this at the ballot box. And you didn’t vote for Sen. Reid. I did. I voted for Ben Cardin and Albert Wynn and they in turn voted for Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi.
Here’s what Majority Follower Reid said on April 12th:
A man of principle, oh yes!
“A man of principle, oh yes!”
You say that like the Republican party doesn’t opperate on a (neraly) 100% political basis. They are still trying to tell the American people that if they vote for the Democratic Party people will die.
“Reid is the Majority Leader, not the majority follower. If I wanted a majority follower, I’d have written in Jon Stewart or Bill Maher.”
Good comment Frank.
God forbid one of our democratically elected leaders would actually folow the will of the people.
You guys are just around the bend. Totally gone.
frameone, Grow up! Suddenly Sen. Reid is starring in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”?
How näive can you get?
The man come out and says “We can get a lot of votes out of this”, and you’re talking about the “will of the people”?
Where’s the legendary frameone cynicism?
First of all, i’ll take cynical motivation for ending a war over a cynical motivation for starting one anyday of the week. Or are you naive enough to think think that Karl Rove never calculated the vote potential of Bush landing on that fucking aircraft carrier, for instance.
Second, the majority of the American people are opposed to this war. When politicians respond to the will of the people, that’s a good thing. Or do you disagree?
Spoken like a true twenty-eight percenter, Frank. Is there anything about the cheney administration you won’t defend?
BTW there is a good summary of what grownups like Frank had to say back in the day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-tomorrow/what-they-said_b_46907.html
I thought the invasion of Iraq was a good thing when it began. I thought it was a good thing irrespective of the presence of nuclear weaponry. I thought it it was a good thing when Joe Wilson came back from Niger and dissembled about the purchase of “yellow cake” because he didn’t want to instigate a war. I thought the invasion of Iraq was a good thing, when Pres. Bush stood on that aircraft carrier and said, “Well done!”. (Did that make the whole war “politically motivated”? No.) Do I favor our involvement in Iraq now? Yes.
Did I change my mind because the Democrats won the House and the Senate? No.
Did Senator Reid change his mind because the Democrats won the House and the Senate? Yes.
Does that make him a political pimp and a poseur? Yes.
Is he the first political pimp and poseur to enter Congress. No.
Will he be the last? No.
When politicians consistently and invariably listen to the will of the people, then, and only then, will I agree, that that is a good thing.
But when politicians “follow the will of the people” when they are Democrats, and they see a way to gain votes, and defeat Republicans, then they are political pimps and poseurs.
buma: That’s right, the penalty for failure to predict the future is chaos and destruction for the Iraqis, humiliation and powerlessness in foreign policy for the United States, and a tremendous boost in morale and motivation for the Islamofascists Islamic fundamentalist terrorist really angry natives who just want us to leave them alone home grown patriots, instigated by our presence.
*impotent sobbing*
“…the penalty for failure to predict the future is chaos and destruction for the Iraqis …”
Predict the future? No one expects anyone to predict the future.
Sadly, it was too much even to ask the assholes in charge to actually PLAN for the future. Hence the current chaos and destruction in Iraq.
Jeez, Frank, you sounded like Rumsfeld just then.
Did I shave this morning? Yes.
Could I have done a better job? Sure, but mistakes were made.
etc.
But when politicians “follow the will of the people” when they are Democrats, and they see a way to gain votes, and defeat Republicans, then they are political pimps and poseurs.
Would the same be true if the parties were reversed, Frank?
“…the penalty for failure to predict the future is chaos and destruction for the Iraqis …”
Haven’t we (well, many of us here) been saying from the get-go that it was a bad idea? Seems like the reward for the ability to predict the future is chaos and destruction for the Iraqis, too, eh?
Oh, I expect my representatives to predict the future. How else can I trust their judgement?
Would the same be true if the parties were reversed, Frank?
Of course it would…
And what did you think I would answer? “Oh, no Duros… If the Republicans made decisions for political expediency pretending they were following the will of the people, I wouldn’t care”.
Why do you think fiscal conservatives and social conservatives alike are disappointed with the Republicans?
Why do you suppose conservative Republicans are saying that Republicans should have stuck to their conservative principles, and have a shot at winning the White House, if and only if, the stick to those principles from now on?
It’s because we expect Republicans to stick to their principles. Rant on all you want about the Republican thirst for power, but until the Bushes, Senior and Junior, tried to play footsie with the Democrats, we were doing OK.
They both should have known how the Democrats play: “Compromise” means “Do it our way”; “Bipartisanship” means “Do it the Democrat(ic) way”.
George Bush Jr. has never tried to play “footsie” with the Dems. The whole reason we are at an impasse w/r/t Iraq is because Bush is determined to have things his way.
Oliver, there is more going on in the United States than the war in Iraq.
President Bush has not vetoed a bill in 8 years.
That is a clear signal to the Democrats that they can have their way fiscally and socially.
Watch for a deal on Iraq that sells out the Iraqis the way Nixon and Kissinger collaborated with Congress in the sellout of Vietnam.
“President Bush has not vetoed a bill in 8 years. That is a clear signal to the Democrats that they can have their way fiscally and socially.”
So the republican dominated Congress which gave Bush whatever he wanted and Bush’d copious number of signing statements in which he simply announced that he would ignore this or that prevision of a law had nothing to do with Bush’s lack of vetos? It’s all about his conciliatory, compromising nature?
You’re an idiot, frank. A total idiot.
“They both should have known how the Democrats play: “Compromise” means “Do it our way”; “Bipartisanship” means “Do it the Democrat(ic) way”.”
The sheer cognitive dissidence shown in this statement is mind-boggling.
It’s like Frank has been living in a parallel dimension for the past 15 years.