Which war are we talking about? The war on Iraq or the war on terror? The war on terror is a worldwide conflict being fought by many countries which for some reason the US has problems keeping as strong allies. The war on Iraq is unjust, is complicating the war on terror, and is destroying the reputation of the US while taking billions of dollars away from the US that should be used for both homeland security needs and the real war on terror.

GWB and his yes men (those who direct his actions) chose Iraq as an easy win—look at Mission Accomplished. That is where the post 9/11 unity went out the door. Yet the US is still there, still unwilling or unable to extricate itself from the quicksand of Iraq. Until the war is focused on the real issues of terrorism, the Iraq mistake is admitted, and national security is really a focus of whatever administration is in office, it will never be everyone’s war.

Mark, you give the thought process of the average Leftist waaaaaaay to much credit. Aside from abortion, I don't think there is much for which the Left is willing to "fight". Their entire mindset with regard to military conflict is based around "exit strategy". The concept of "victory" is as foreign to them as the thought that a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy would make any choice other than an abortion.

What RS said !!!

Lefties, it is your country; your President, your government and your war. Your responsibility as citizens is to work for the best possible outcome of any particular action.

Believe me we are working very hard to ensure that there is a resounding message sent to the rubber stampers on Nov. 7th so that the American people will finally be able to have some accountability and good governance.

You should think carefully about what you say and do - and ask yourself this simple question: does what I advocate help or hinder the performance of my moral obligations as a citizen of the United States. If an emphatic "yes" is the answer, then all is well - but think carefully on it, and think it all the way through. If you do, then you just might decide to support our war.

Believe me Mark, it'll be those of us who disagree with your views about the iraq war and who do not espouse FAILURE AS A POLICY that will likely end up rescuing this nation from the very dark and perilous path on which Bush has it firmly set.

The lefties hypocritical attitudes about war can be seen by comparing the Dem and lefty complaints against Iraq war to the war against Serbia, launched by "their" president.

"Iraq never attacked us."
Neither did Serbia. (Come to think of it, neither did N. Korea, N. Vietnam and the Kaiser's Germany, all of whom had to deal with American troops sent by Democratic presidents.)

"Iraq was never a threat to us."
Neither was Serbia.

"Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda."
Neither did Milosevic.

"The war in Iraq is unilateral."
32 allies for the initial invasion of Iraq.
1 ally (Britain) for the bombing of Serbia.
OK, some lefties will say something like, "most of those were just tokens". Assuming that's true for the sake of argument, that would mean that both wars had 1 "real" ally, the UK, and would thus be equally unilateral.

Now let's turn it around. What was our reason for the war against Serbia? It was solely humanitarian, because Milosevic had killed "tens of thousands" of Kosovars, according to Bill Clinton. The actual number was somewhere between 2000 and 4000 (according to the estimates I've come across). On the other hand, by conservative (as in "cautious", not "right wing") estimates, Saddam killed at least 300,000 Kurds. This, of course, does not include Shiites and political prisoners. Thus, if you justify war solely on how a ruler treats his people, the Iraq war is far more justifiable than the Serbia war.

Come to think of it, since the number of dead Kosovars, along with the presence of mass graves, was quite a bit lower than Bill Clinton alleged, did he lie? If not, and he was merely mistaken, should not George W. Bush be given the same benefit of the doubt?

Yes, I know. There were people, including rightwingers, who were against Clinton's war, including the "wag the dog" crowd, but the anti-war rhetoric was nowhere near as shrill and unhinged then as it is now. And I would also point out that some righties, including the publishers of National Review and Weekly Standard supported that war.

the Iraq mistake is admitted

Absolutely the WORST possible thing to do. Anyone thinks that admitting this war was a mistake will improve our standing in the world is seriously mistaken. For one thing, this will be seen in the Moslem world as an admission of weakness, which is precisely what inspires terrorism. Getting out of Iraq will mean that once again, the US has abandoned an ally, and this will cause respect for us to plunge to unimaginable new lows. When we did that in Vietnam, the communists killed 800,000 Vietnamese people. Cut and run is the real "failure as a policy".

The moral relativism of the left makes it difficult for them to support any war. Living in the Pac NW, I listen to the shrillness of the left on a daily basis about the war in Iraq. "It's an illegal war!!!" "Bush Lied, People Died!!!" "No War for OIL!!" ad nausium. Let me interject a thought. Has anyone on the left thought about the consequences of what whould have happened if all the Intellegence agencys had been right, and Sadaam had had WMD, and Sadaam had used WMD in the U.S. and President GW Bush had basically ignored the threat? They seem to forget that we (Americans) did not ask for nor want this war. They also want to say that the terrorist threat is greater because of W. One more thing, as a person who has a master in Religious Studies, I can tell you that the Islamists have been against the West since the beginning. This is not a recent phenomona.

arcman - you fail to recognize the very troubling fact (relative to your basis for argument) that iraq was largely secular and was mandated as such under a tryannical leader who kept the country in such a state. saddam had a fervent distrust of al qaeda. and with regard to your lofty hypothetical, let's not forget that you can cherry-pick intelligence all day long but the assertive conclusion (had we not been misled) would have been a resounding "NO" - iraq did not possess nor contain the infrastructure to produce WMD's. and by the way, north korea is telling us they DO have WMD's - what's your response? should we invade? bc, by your logic, any country that proclaims to have WMD's and is percieved as a threat to the US should be invaded. well, golly, let's troop-up bc we have some invadin' to do!!

perceived

AJ Strata has a great post today that dovetails with this one.

in reply to retired spook:

if the dems are to be labeled as cowardly for anything it is for playing right into the administartion's hands when the they went ahead and gave the president the authorization for the use of force in a politically charged climate just after 9/11 when it the bill was steamrolled in the month coming up to an election. it has now become SO APPARENT to all that the president chose to exploit the atmosphere of a nation still reeling from the attacks to embrace a neocon agenda that involved going into iraq (an agenda that was advanced the very moment bush came into office).
let's take a look exactly at what was contained in that authorization:

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

the actual verbiage of the authorization is as clear evidence as ever that the bush administration was successful in their little intelligence "parlor game" by convincing most of the congressional community that iraq did have WMD and was connected to al qaeda and 9/11. nothing like selling loaded and misleading intelligence to get their war that they always wanted. disturbing stuff indeed.

LET'S PUT THE OLD CANARD TO REST ONCE AND FOR ALL - if the administration had not done such a clever job of cherry picking and keeping dissenting intelligence views out of the hands of congress, they would NEVER have voted for it the FIRST PLACE. end of story.

if the dems are to be labeled as cowardly for anything it is for playing right into the administartion's hands when the they went ahead and gave the president the authorization for the use of force in a politically charged climate just after 9/11 when it the bill was steamrolled in the month coming up to an election. it has now become SO APPARENT to all that the president chose to exploit the atmosphere of a nation still reeling from the attacks to embrace a neocon agenda that involved going into iraq (an agenda that was advanced the very moment bush came into office).
let's take a look exactly at what was contained in that authorization:

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

the actual verbiage of the authorization is as clear evidence as ever that the bush administration was successful in their little intelligence "parlor game" by convincing most of the congressional community that iraq did have WMD and was connected to al qaeda and 9/11. nothing like selling loaded and misleading intelligence to get their war that they always wanted. disturbing stuff indeed.

LET'S PUT THE OLD CANARD TO REST ONCE AND FOR ALL - if the administration had not done such a clever job of cherry picking and keeping dissenting intelligence views out of the hands of congress, they would NEVER have voted for it the FIRST PLACE. end of story.

Orange,

Saddam's alleged secularism has been rather exaggerated...he was going down the Islamo-fascist path: are you unaware, or deliberately ignoring, the fact that Saddam claimed to have provided his own blood to write a copy of the Koran?

mark - was not aware, but a very cursory search of "saddam" "blood" and "koran" not surprisingly yields more stories of skepticism and refutation than of confirmation (outside of freeperville that is):
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg05187.html

net/net - i would discount this story along with the mobile weapons trailer, aluminum tubes, and drones that can reach american shores....

OA,

AJ Strata, in the post I linked to above, has a different take on this than you do, one that I find a whole lot more plausible, given the inherent intellectual dishonesty of the Dems. In responding to the same Michael Barone article as Mark, AJ says:

Well, to summarize this would be to note many aspects of the Democrats. If they had legitimate concerns for “changing their minds” one could give them some leeway for being quitters in the face of slow, steady progress. But since they have no good rationale, just claims that Bush fooled them into Iraq, we are left with the conclusion they are two-faced

The Dems did not vote to go into Iraq because they believed anything being said at the time. This is by their own admission into being fooled by Bush. They were too cowardly to express their resistance to fighting Saddam and decided they could turn on Bush later, when being open and honest about their views was to their political advantage. Basically they are the ones who sent our troops to Iraq under false pretenses. Bush and the Reps believed Saddam was a risk that had to be removed. The Dems saw Iraq as a political land mine where they would lose seats if they truly expressed their concerns (voiced by their anti-war base quite loudly and through the Dean campaign for President). That is why they have graduated to “two-faced” on this issue. They misled everyone because they were too afraid their views would hurt them politically. We see that in the Kerry statement “I voted against the war, before I voted for it”. He lied to everyone, and probably himself. Bush has been open and consistent. The Democrats have not. (emphasis - mine)

The Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force was based upon the best information that both Democrats and Republicans had at the time. Senator Clinton has stated that the intellegence used to authorize the use of force was materially similar to what she and her husband saw when they were in the White House. Also, I think it is highly probable that whatever information made it into the Congressional resolution that authorized the use of force would have been vetted by the CIA and the supposedly bipartisan intellegence committees fo the House and the Senate. Unfortunately much of our intellegence turned out to be wrong.

A recent poll showed 51% of Democrats stated they want Bush to fail even if that means the USA is failing.

Nothing more need to be said. Liberals are disgusting and hypocrites like no one else.

They misled everyone because they were too afraid their views would hurt them politically. We see that in the Kerry statement “I voted against the war, before I voted for it”. He lied to everyone, and probably himself.

retired spook - i cannot say that i disagree with you. i certainly fault the party for not having the spine to stand-up and be more outspoken about due process and diligence when it came to the extraordinary measure of authorizing the use of force against another nation. that said, it's equally reprehensible that the republicans chose to exploit this matter by holding a vote four weeks prior to an election only one year after 9/11. not only was it was morally reprehensible, it gave the sitting senators little more than a week to debate this authorization much less have the time to flush the intelligence for accuracy.

warrior - would help if you provided the link to this poll you cite.

arcman:

Do you have a master in bigoty too? The shrill voices!? Ha! When you attack people who want less violence you know you gotta be nuts. Get a clue nit wit!

Warriornation-

I don't agree with Democrats in most areas, but that sounds patently absurd. Please provide a link, or actual evidence of some type.

Here you go OrangeAlert

"Fox’s question was revealing: “Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” Democrats said “not,” 51 percent to 40 percent - where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one."

Here is the link from the blog I found it on (but it links directly to the story and poll results).

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/09/24/majority-of-democrats-want-bush-to-fail/

Read it and weap.

This country is battling the media, the liberal USA hating Democrats and the Terrorists all at the same time.

Baysidebomber...I have provided the link above

It's not patently absurd...it's DISGUSTING. 2/3 of the rest of the country wants Bush to succeed, but not the Democrats...what a shock.

Here is the direct link to the poll results...see page 4, question 10.

I don't know if it bears repeating, but the AUMF in Iraq stipulated that Bush was required to determine that reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

He was also required to ensure that acting pursuant to the resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

One could argue, I suppose, that congress could have been a bit more clear about the requirement that further diplomatic efforts or other peaceful means are "not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Ultimately, that's really what Bush's decision to invade boiled down to: he decided that Saddam was not sufficiently complying with UNSC resolution 1441.

That's the decision that caused Bush's support to erode. After all, not too many people agreed with him. Even Colin Powell and Tony Blair urged him to wait. Inspectors were in Iraq. They hadn't found anything, they felt their work wasn't done (they only started 3 months before -- both Kay and Duelfur were allowed more time than that), and the international support existed (and plans were on the table) to make the inspections even more intrusive. What's the rush?

Anyway, we're there now. And I think Mark has it right: "Every time a Marine in Anbar pulls the trigger, it is morally each and every one of us pulling that trigger. The most tin-foil hat among you on the left are morally responsible for what we've done in the war - and you are morally responsible for what we do from this point on." Everyone is morally responsible for this war. And thus, I feel that everyone has a moral obligation to gather as much information as possible on it and what goes on. We all have a moral obligation to demand the pure, unvarnished, un-spun truth about what's going on (short of revealing state secrets, of course). And if, on that basis, we can justify what is happening, we have a moral obligation to stand up and be counted. Likewise if, on that same basis we cannot justify what is happening, then we have a moral obligation to speak out, to do what we can to change things, and especially to consider the consequences. We DO NOT have a moral obligation to act like lemmings, or to become pawns in a power game. Rather, we have a moral obligation not to be.

ok warrior - i just clicked through to the Fox PDF and indeed on question 10 they ask the following:

Regardless of how you voted in the election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?

Indeed, as you report, 40 percent of dems say they do not. 34% of independents do not. Of course, this is a loaded question because the polling script does not specify what exactly "success" means. Does success mean pushing through a conservative agenda, does it imply confirmation of Bush's mandate to run the government as he sees fit? does it make reference to success in the upcoming elections in november (indeed - the very next six questions have to do specifically with the elections)? honestly, i think it warrants much greater clarification as to what "success" really means in terms of the poll. it's a terribly-worded poll question (happens all the time) designed to produce a potentially "hot" result that is vulnerable to spin reporting. that's my take.

so thank you for providing the link warrior. am i weeping, no, i think any rational mind would come to a similar conclusion.

Warriornation-

You claimed that 51% of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed "even if that means the USA is failing". The poll question I saw only talked about Bush succeeding (nothing about America failing). That is very ambiguous since a lack of success could refer to something as innocent as tax cuts not getting passed. When you make exaggerated and inaccurate claims like this it makes it seem that conservatives can not win an argument based on real issues and facts, which we obviously can.

very good observation bayside. warrior surreptitiously inserts his own wording to make the result even more incendiary. how disingenuous.

Bayside....2/3 of the nation said they want to see Bush succeed and that included independents.

Historically this has always been the case regardless of who is in office, you still want the leader of your country to do well because that translates to the country doing well.

It is disgusting what Democrats have become nowadays. The party of JFK, Truman, FDR are so long gone now they aren't even recognizeable.

Orange can't even accept facts that the Dems are so blinded by their hatred that they want Bush to fail even if that means the USA suffers.

Apparently the independent in this country aren't blinded by the same hatred. Neither were Republicans under Clinton (they didn't like the guy, but they still didn't poll for him to fail).

Democrats...absolutely disgusting now.

Warriornation-

I think you are missing the fact that this poll result is utterly meaningless due to the ambiguity of the question. After all, if a Democrat hopes Bush "does not succeed" in privatizing Social Security, that is not related in any way to a desire to see America fail. You are giving us rational conservatives a bad name with this type of nonsense. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with somebody politically without treason ever coming into play.

warrior - i'm not trying to get in a shouting match here (you have your views and i have mine), but it does seem rather disingenuous to add your own spin to a result to further your own case or point you are trying to advance.

and here, you do it AGAIN:

Bayside....2/3 of the nation said they want to see Bush succeed and that included independents.

Historically this has always been the case regardless of who is in office, you still want the leader of your country to do well because that translates to the country doing well.

what evidence do you cite to support that?

warrior - i'm not trying to get in a shouting match here (you have your views and i have mine), but it does seem rather disingenuous to add your own spin to a result to further your own case or point you are trying to advance.

and here, you do it AGAIN:

Bayside....2/3 of the nation said they want to see Bush succeed and that included independents.

Historically this has always been the case regardless of who is in office, you still want the leader of your country to do well because that translates to the country doing well.

what evidence do you cite to support that?

I see, so the Independents were able to figure out the "ambiguity" but the Democrats weren't?

Doesn't that just speak volumes

Could Harry Reid be any more immature?

Bigfoot: "1 ally (Britain) for the bombing of Serbia."

You might want to check your notes. The bombing of Serbia was sanctioned by NATO, and had that organization's full participation. It was not, however, sanctioned by the UN. The UN considered it an internal matter. Nonetheless, Serbia was an active and on-going threat to non-Serbs in Kosovo at the time. Regardless of the number of casualties involved, the fact remained that people were still dying when the bombing campaign began. We didn't start bombing on the basis of past transgressions, or any notion of future "transgression potential", it was because Serbia was actively supporting killing people. That was the rationale. And any comparison with Iraq has to take that fact into account.

I rather like that "transgression potential" phrase. I think I'll copyright it. It might even be worthy of some kind of equation, lol! But I digress...

That being said, there are both many similarities and many dissimilarities between what happened in what was once Yugoslavia and what is (at least for the moment) Iraq. And they are all definitely worthy of study. But I don't think any of the comments here do much than just scratch the surface of the complexity involved in either place.

How did I feel about our involvement in the Balkans? Not so good. For one thing (and most importantly), there wasn't a clear exit strategy. If the bombing didn't work (which, in effect, is to say if the Serbian people chose to back Milosevic against outside interlopers -- and at least superficially, there was every reason to think they would: nationalist sentiments there were, after all, what sparked WWI), it wasn't clear that anyone had any sort of detailed plan as far as what to do (or not to do) next. Even to this day I don't know what plans were in place. It is an exceedingly interesting question, though. It might have some bearing on Bush's thinking about Iraq.

Another thing is that NATO's bombing of Serbia certainly pissed off Russia. That and related issues could alone fill a book. Does anyone remember the particulars of what got Wesley Clarke in hot water? Russia figured prominently in that regard. Then there was China. As you recall, the Chinese embassy was bombed under (still) questionable circumstances. That came on the heels of an earlier confrontation for the benefit of Taiwan, which was still festering at the time. My point is that you can't ignore those issues in light of the present issues (e.g., Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea). Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

On another topic, I think you lefties have to admit that some moonbats really do think it is more important for Bush to fail than it is for Iraq to succeed. I have heard it with my own ears. I have even asked a few individuals the bottom-line question: if it is necessary for Iraq to fall apart in order for the American people to turn against Bush, would that be acceptable to you? And mind you, my interaction with libbies are largely confined to rather smart people -- PhDs and the like (active academics, in other words). And in more than a couple of instances the answer was: yes.

Granted, they go into an explanation tangentially similar to my oft-stated distinction between political reality versus objective reality. The difference is that they argue that the former has to be addressed before the latter could be with any effectiveness. And to be fair, I've heard similar (though mirror-opposite) arguments from the other side as well. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but that argument, be it offered in favor of one side or the other, is very, very sad. And in the present context it is downright sick. It puts ideological considerations before both logical consistency and, more importantly, moral integrity.

And both sides are guilty. For example, this weekend Jack Murtha appeared on MSNBC's Hardball (keefer, in his licence plate incarnation, calls the network "MSNBS"), and Chris Matthews asked him what the Dems offer as far as a plan on Iraq. Murtha basically said that "we [the Dems] have to deal from a power base." In other words, he argued that the Dems won't come up with a plan until they were in power. To which Matthews retorted, "Isn't that like saying I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today?" (for those of you too young to remember, that was a famous line from a Popeye character, appropriately named "Wimpy", lol). On the other hand, Bill Kristol appeared on Fox News' Studio B with Shepard Smith (I've provided a citation in a recent comment on another thread). Smith similarly challenged Kristol on the same issue -- why don't the Reps (which basically means the Bush admin) enunciate what their forward policy is now, rather than wait for the elections? And Kristol basically said the same thing Murtha did -- Bush is waiting for the elections to pass before he will take a stand.

Meanwhile both American troops, Iraqi troops, and Iraqi citizens continue to die, and it is costing us $2 billion a week. Where's the outrage? It seems to me that people on both sides should be righteously pissed off. As Mark pointed out in a recent topic, we ALL have a moral obligation to justify every bullet fired, and every life taken. To put political expediency above that is, well... immoral. Ambiguity my butt.

Oh, and by the way 1H8L1BS: bite me. Lol!

Warriornation-

Please consider a hypothetical situation where the person being polled would consider Bush "success" as making tax cuts permanent. A Republican would be most likely to want success, but an Independent would generally be more likely than a Democrat. The issue of wanting America to fail has nothing to do with it.

I do not necessarily disagree with your premise, but this poll does not support your opinion even a little bit. Honestly, I hope that you are not an adult, as your complete lack of understanding of the rules of logic are staggering.

Ricorun,

Look at this

You may have already seen this, but I thought I'd post it just in case. It's a little terrifying; it challenges some of the assertions that you and I have been making, but it doesn't spare any criticism of the Bush administration either. It seems to invoke the possibility that it's already to late for us to win in Iraq, no matter what we do. Let me know what you think.

Spin: A heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation.

Warriornation
"A recent poll showed 51% of Democrats stated they want Bush to fail even if that means the USA is failing."

Notice the spin in bold does not appear in the original question?

“Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?”

Succeed in what?

Let me spin this another way for you.
90% of Republicans want Bush to succeed, whether what he is doing is legal or not. Moral or not. Justified or not. Even if that means the USA is failing.

I'll give you one more example of spin.
1. Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?
Highest (14-15 Nov 01) 88% 7 5
Note the date, and you thought it was the Democrats the terrorist were in cahoots with. I bet Bush didn't even thank OBL for the boost.

Thanks for the polls Warriornation
37. Do you think the United States should try to broker a cease-fire or let Israel do whatever it thinks it needs to do?
SCALE: 1. Try to broker a cease-fire 2. Let Israel do what it thinks it needs to do 3. (Don’t know)
Cease-fire Let Israel act (DK)

Democrats 49% 39 12
Republicans 35% 59 7
Independents 49% 46 5

Look at the Warmonger, I mean Republican numbers. 59% of Republicans say: Unleash the Zionists and let the bombs fly!

Spin: A heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation.

Warriornation
"A recent poll showed 51% of Democrats stated they want Bush to fail even if that means the USA is failing."

Notice the spin in bold does not appear in the original question?

“Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?”

Succeed in what?

Let me spin this another way for you.
90% of Republicans want Bush to succeed, whether what he is doing is legal or not. Moral or not. Justified or not. Even if that means the USA is failing.

I'll give you one more example of spin.
1. Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?
Highest (14-15 Nov 01) 88% 7 5
Note the date, and you thought it was the Democrats the terrorist were in cahoots with. I bet Bush didn't even thank OBL for the boost.

Thanks for the polls Warriornation
37. Do you think the United States should try to broker a cease-fire or let Israel do whatever it thinks it needs to do?
SCALE: 1. Try to broker a cease-fire 2. Let Israel do what it thinks it needs to do 3. (Don’t know)
Cease-fire Let Israel act (DK)

Democrats 49% 39 12
Republicans 35% 59 7
Independents 49% 46 5

Look at the Warmonger, I mean Republican numbers. 59% of Republicans say: Unleash the Zionists and let the bombs fly!

other_nate, I read the article. It raises some very disturbing issues. And I think perhaps the most disturbing is the idea that it would be difficult and costly to scrape up enough troops to raise levels in Iraq significantly, regardless of whether it was a good idea or not. That appeared to be the concensus opinion of all the interviewees on the question. They're pretty heavy hitters, too. So it is very disturbing. For one thing, in addition to tying our hands in Iraq and Afghanistan, it effectively eliminates any possibility of a military option with respect to Iran.

As far as whether the time for more troops is over even if it was possible, I've been slowly coming to the same conclusion myself. One thing is very clear to me, though, and that is that we need a fresh perspective on the situation there - and the sooner it happens the better off we're going to be.

Rico: "the most disturbing is the idea that it would be difficult and costly to scrape up enough troops to raise levels in Iraq significantly, regardless of whether it was a good idea or not."

Right. Even with the prospect of a Fresh Perspective come November, I'm getting a real sinking feeling over this right now. Like you, I have wondered for some time whether or not have we already passed a point of no return in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we no longer actually have the resources that would be necessary to stabilize either country (or both at the same time, as is our current goal).

Seeing bits of analysis like this brings my musings to a place of anxiety. Like I've said before though, the spectre of failure in Iraq or Afghanistan shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

other_nate: "Even with the prospect of a Fresh Perspective come November..."

Let me be perfectly clear about what I mean -- I am not implying any sort of change in congressional power. And even if it happened that the Dems took control of one or the other house (or both), I doubt it would make much of a difference if the Bush admin. didn't want it to. The president holds the cards on foreign policy, so it is up to him and him alone to seek a fresh perspective. And frankly, I am not advocating waiting until after the elections, either. I think the Iraq Survey Group report should be released now, so it can be openly and meaningfully discussed before the opportunity passes.

On a related note, Bob Woodward said something today that I think is rather interesting: he said he's gotten wind of a plan to bring a bipartisan congressional entourage into the White House for a real, honest-to-God pow-wow on Iraq -- not just another one of those 45 minute round-robin things either, where everyone gets like 5 min to talk. But real, in-depth meetings. Personally, I think that should have been done a long time ago. Because it IS "Our War", and it should be both recognized and treated as such. Had he done that -- that is, made a serious, honest attempt to reach out across the aisle, I mean -- I suspect the situation might be very different now.

Then again, what do I know?

Bayside, you can view it any way you wish. I view it as they want Bush to fail even if that means the US fails.

Now, say your interpretation is correct...then at the very least what the Dems are saying by these poll numbers is a hatred for one person like nothing I have ever seen. BDS personified.

"Bayside, you can view it any way you wish. I view it as they want Bush to fail even if that means the US fails.

Now, say your interpretation is correct...then at the very least what the Dems are saying by these poll numbers is a hatred for one person like nothing I have ever seen. BDS personified."

Thats it? No comment on you manipulating data slightly to fit your view?

Ricorun,

You should check out redstate.com. Read around, post a couple of comments; I think you'd like it. It's a conservative forum, to be sure, but it also entertains a strong libertarian streak, and the flavor of the discussions there is, well, downright philosophical. The last couple of days have seen me in an argument with a poster named Socrates, I kid you not. You should read some of our exchanges on that thread, here. My username is other_nate there now, too. The thread is huge, and absolutely full of thought from all sides. My back-and-forths with a guy named Johne, especially, are delightful to me.

I feel like Thomas Jefferson's younger, stupider brother, writing commentaries to distant colleagues. Redstate is definitely bigger, but it's not so big that I feel lost there. IT manages to maintain the intimacy that I like so much about Blogs4Bush.

Bane and B.Poster, if you guys are reading this, I think you'd like it too.

I missed the following flaws of logic completely when I read the last paragraph:

Lefties, it is your country; your President, your government and your war. Your responsibility as citizens is to work for the best possible outcome of any particular action. You should think carefully about what you say and do - and ask yourself this simple question: does what I advocate help or hinder the performance of my moral obligations as a citizen of the United States. If an emphatic "yes" is the answer, then all is well - but think carefully on it, and think it all the way through. If you do, then you just might decide to support our war.

Obviously, one cannot answer an either/or question with a simple yes, can one? The person who pointed it out to me was a damn leftie, by the way ....