Good to be out here on the ledge with so many of my fellow Americans.
Opposition to the Iraq war has reached a record high, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a development likely to complicate President Bush’s efforts to hold together Republican support as the Senate begins debate this week on Pentagon priorities.
Bush’s approval rating has reached a new low: 29%.
In the survey, taken Friday through Sunday, one in five Americans says the increase in U.S. forces in Iraq since January has made the situation there better. Half say it hasn’t made a difference.
More than seven in 10 favor removing nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by April.
Still, 55% say Congress should wait to develop a new policy on Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, delivers a promised assessment in September; 40% say Congress should act now.
Hm. Those Americans aren’t taking the surrender position but rather they are saying”lets hear what the general says.” And of course the Democratic Congress’ approval level, wherein resides the surrender sentiment, is much lower than Bush’s.
Yes, Dugger. Democrats in Congress are chomping at the bit to bow their heads to bin Laden and wave a white flag, and then accept their beheading with joy.
You’re ridiculous and dishonest, Dugger, and I can only assume you continue to spout this “surrender” meme because you have nothing of actual substance to offer.
Dugger has taken the “continued defeat” position.
Boys,
When you decide to evacuate the battlefield and leave it to the enemy - thats surrender in my and most miltiary persons minds. The terrorists, Baathists, insurgents will surely reagrd it as the US surrendering. But its Ok if the Democrats want to call if ’strategic withdrawal. That way they can con their psyches into believing they didn’t at first vote for war and then back out. AT least Obama is right on that much.
Or, you can continue to commit your army to a grinding losing strategy until you lose the war. Great strategery there Dugger.
Dugger IS dishonest about a lot of things, not this..
He REALLY believes this idiocy. He’s convinced me, He really does.
And Bush and the GOP count on guys like Dugger for their 29% who keep believing, in spite of what their lying eyes tell them.
Dugger - The better military minds are more nuanced than you seem to believe, and understand that sometimes you must abandon a losing battle in order to regroup and win the war.
Forgive the poker metaphor, as what we’re discussing is more dire than card games, but you’re on tilt, clearly, and seem to have the blind idea that we must go all-in on Iraq. The only reason you keep calling it “surrender to the terrorists” is because you don’t have the faith to believe that America could still beat back al-Qaida even if it suffered a defeat in Iraq.
Neoconservatism means never having to say you’re sorry.
Dugger would rather ten thousand American troops die than admit us liberals were right. Cutting your losses is what’s best for America.
Bin Laden’s plan was to create a tar baby in Iraq.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
It can’t be said enough.
Cheney’s approval is at 13%. Just sayin’.
“When you decide to evacuate the battlefield and leave it to the enemy - thats surrender in my and most miltiary persons minds.”
Two points:
1.) Bush said that when American wins their won’t be a formal surrender on a battleship because there isn’t an enemy that can surrender. So if that is true, how can American surrender if there isn’t such an enemy?
2.) When you don’t have a plan for victory, or even a way to define it, then you’ve lost. Bush, ’surrendered’ long ago when he went in without a plan. Redeployment doesn’t mean you’ve lost, cause that’s already happened.
Spider,
If I may say, I am retired military and my mind is nuanced - but it isn’t so fuzzy so as to not recognize ’surrender’. When you give up, quit, ‘no mas’ - thats surrender. Are there times an Army needs to surrender. Yes. Is this one of those times. No. Why? There are alternative between surrender and continuing as is in Iraq. There are ways to leave, even in the relative short term without surrendering. One is to set certain achievable goals, attain those goals and then depart amid a victory celebration. Sends the message that we think we won and that that is the reason we are leaving and if you, Ts or Baathists or whoever, start genocide, we’ll come back over and kick butt again. Doubt us. Ask Saddam. The key would be identifying achievable goals. Savvy people could figure those out. And that is what the adults in both parties will work out - probably this fall.
One is to set certain achievable goals, attain those goals
I thought we did that, and haven’t met those goals?
Savvy people could figure those out.
Sure wish we had some of those now.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
Staying is what al Qaeda wants.
duros
Uhh, if we didn’t meet them (the objectives), they, by definition, weren’t achievable. Nicht wahr?
And we do have savvy people on both sides who may do that, but first comes the General’s report in Sept.
“Uhh, if we didn’t meet them (the objectives), they, by definition, weren’t achievable. Nicht wahr?”
Nicht. In fact, that’s completely wrong in an elementary way.
“..if we didn’t meet them (the objectives), they, by definition, weren’t achievable. Nicht wahr?”
Wow, Dugs. That sure is some nuance. If we can’t achieve the goals we set for ourselves then the goals must have been unachievable so we need to set new ones. When we fail to meet those goals, what then? New achievable goals? And on and on …
It’s astonishing that this is what its come to on the right.
The only reason that people like Dugger want the U.S. to stay in Iraq is because leaving would make them look bad. And in their warped little minds, preventing that is worth killing over 600k people for.
Uhh, if we didn’t meet them (the objectives), they, by definition, weren’t achievable. Nicht wahr?
Just because the lazy kid in the class fluked the test doesn’t mean it was unpassable.
It is NEVER OUR FAULT, god damn it. If we couldn’t achieve our objectives it must have been impossible from the start and we just didn’t know it BECAUSE IT IS NOT OUR FAULT IT CAN NEVER BE OUR FAULT WE ARE INFALLIBLE
Seriously, there was an episode of Babar dealing with this concept. That means that six to eight year olds are expected to understand and embrace the concept personal responsibility.
Does Dugger really still need an anthropomorphic elephant to guide him? Actually come to think of it he probably has one already, in his head. But it’s not French.
Mathematically, it means that conservatives are plunging the knife into him, because he lost the liberals and moderates ages ago.
According to you, America should pile dead upon dead until the end of time in Iraq as it did in Vietnam. Among adults, sacrificing the lives of America’s soldiers for nothing is a terrible waste. Bush is a liar; you are a chickenhawk fool.
There is no plan in Iraq. There was no plan to win, there is no exit strategy, there is no definition of victory. No ‘military’ man and no mature person would agree to the endless sacrifice of his soldiers in these circumstances, so I strongly doubt the veracity of your claim. It goes without saying that you are not ‘nuanced;’ you merely spin the latest word from the party line. You’re a hack.
Leaving Iraq to Iraqis is sane and sensible. Following incompetent liars like the Bush regime is childish and silly.
I hate to think of the consequences the US could have if we withdraw from Iraq. Why, we could be invaded by Iran or Syria next week!!!
Is it just me, or does it seem that alot of conservatives are praying for another terrorist attack so it might influence public opinion on Iraq?
Of course that poll, like a terrorist attack on US soil is ‘good for Republicans.’ Ask santorum.
Zython
I do not want the US to stay in Iraq. I would like every soldier and civilian out -as soon as conditions realistically permit. Its that last part that progressives can’t deal with. But mark my words, every single Democratic candidate running for Pres, with the possible exception of Lil Denny, will deal with those conditions and will base their policy on that realism. The surrender position will not make the cut.
as soon as conditions realistically permit
Funny thing about this phrase is that neither you, nor anybody in charge, has ever clearly defined what these conditions would be in anything but the vaguest terms.
“Victory,” per se.
Again, as long as you continue to call it the “surrender” position, I feel perfectly justified calling the dissenting opinion the “kill everybody” position, since it’s the same level of ridiculous.
Dugger thinks the US has an infinite supply of bandaids.
You can beleieb anything you want.
But “Kill everybody’?
WW1 and WW2 were very bad and they didn’t kill everybody. This is one of the least deadly wars in history. And I don’t say we shouldn’t leave Iraq, but that we should do it properly. That is also what the adults in the Democratic party will insist upon.
And I know you and others would like to experience nothing but the sugar coating of the left’s (and now maybe some on the right) ’strategic withdrawal’ position and ignore the hard kernel underneath. That kernel is surrender. The peole we are fighting and the people who are fighting for us regurad it thusly.
Bush’s war on Iraq is in no way analogous to WWI or WWII. Bush attacked a country that did nothing to the US. Bush lied to the American people to make them support his war. Bush is responsible for the civil disorder, death and destruction in Iraq.
The people we are killing are Iraqis. They did nothing to provoke this war, which is illegal and immoral.
So far, Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis; for 2,000,000 refugees who have left Iraq; and for over 1,500,000 refugees in Iraq
For only one example US shot or killed 429 Iraqi civilians in the last year
RAW STORY
Published: Thursday July 12, 2007
US soldiers in Iraq killed or wounded 429 Iraqi civilians at checkpoints or near patrols just in the last year — according to military statistics leaked to a McClatchy Newspaper reporter….
Bush has yet to announce what his exit strategy is or what constitutes ‘victory;’ but in point of fact, Iraq has its own government. If it is not an American puppet, it will be responsible for ending the civil war once the US leaves.
The people of the Middle East are being increasingly radicalized because of this policy. To continue in Iraq would be stupid policy, but that is all we’ve ever had from Bush is his little minions and his chickenhawk apologists, who have not a clue what anyone in Iraq thinks.
Mike, Your statistics are suspect and your suppositions are wrong. The war is legal, for intance. And Iraq, WWI and WWII were all wars and thus, to that extent, analogous. And I have shown repeatedly here that the overall death rate for Iraqis was much higher under Saddam than afterwards.
AND LA County is waaay more dangerous coz Dugs says so.
And yes there were more total American deaths in Democratic-run LA County total, comparable time period, than American deaths in Iraq total. Much to the chagrin of pious, holier than thou progressives. Frame still hasn’t gotten over that sad fact.
We count brown people as well, dicknuts.
“And I have shown repeatedly here that the overall death rate for Iraqis was much higher under Saddam than afterwards.”
You’re only half right. You haven’t “shown” it at all, you’ve just repeated it like that’s all you need to do to make it true.
Nope, I’ve demonstrated multiple times from middle of the road sources - like IBC. You wish it weren’t so Nimmer but it is. And may I save you little work - Lancet has been discredited.
And yes there were more total American deaths in Democratic-run LA County total, comparable time period, than American deaths in Iraq total. Much to the chagrin of pious, holier than thou progressives. Frame still hasn’t gotten over that sad fact.
And Duggs obviously never finished middle school.
Nope, I’ve demonstrated multiple times from middle of the road sources - like IBC.
I’m sorry*, but I’m going to have to question yoursources.
*Not really
You wish it weren’t so Nimmer but it is.
And you hate America.
And may I save you little work - Lancet has been discredited.
By who? Bill “pink pistols” O’Riley?
I must have missed the part where you did anything except scream your ridiculous premise at the top of your lungs over and over again, Dugger.
You never did answer when this came up: are you really happy for America to be judged as simply “not as bad as Saddam”?
Dugger: “And may I save you little work - Lancet has been discredited.”
Nope. That never happened. In fact, Lancet used the exact same methodology that the United States government uses to just the death tolls of natural disasters / genocide.
So if it works there, why not here?
Re Lancet
An article in the Wall Street Journal by Steven Moore, who worked as a pollster for the coalition authorities in Iraq, attacked the sampling: “The key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report… the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn’t survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.”
And on 20 October, Science Magazine reported the queries of researchers at Oxford and Royal Holloway universities. One of them, Sean Gourley of the Physics department at Oxford, said their studies “have found fundamental flaws [in the Lancet report] that lead to an over-estimation of the number of deaths. ”
One aspect they questioned was the selection of sample households chosen for interviews. There could be “main street bias”, they said, in that households on main streets were more likely to suffer casualties from car bombings. They want an inquiry into the methodology. “It’s almost a crime to let it go unchallenged,” said Neil Johnson of Oxford. ”
Now what part of ‘fundamentally flawed’ do you boys nicht verstanden?
I’m right on this and I’m right on LA County: more American deaths in LA County than American deaths in Iraq - same period of time. Better find another reason to hate Bush.
Why do you keep lapsing into German?
Why do you keep lapsing into German?
And for the last time WE’RE COUNTING THE LITTLE BROWN PEOPLE IN IRAQ TOO.
Dugger: “Now what part of ‘fundamentally flawed’ do you boys nicht verstanden?”
The 47 cluster points and 1,849 interviews is more than enough to get a legitimate number, just one with a high margin of error. (Which was part of the Lancet study initial report.)
As for the other report. “There could be ‘main street bias’, they said…” Could be? You are dismissing the report because someone said there could be a problem? Are you serious? There could be problems with any poll, it doesn’t mean you ignore them.
Dugger: “more American deaths in LA County than American deaths in Iraq”
Huh? Suddenly Iraqis dying doesn’t count.
Dugger: Proving that a lack of understanding of basic statistics is required to be an ultra-conservative.
Nimrod Gently re Dugger:
“Why do you keep lapsing into German?”
Too easy.