bloc's tags:
bloc's most popular posts:
bloc reads (17):
Who's reading bloc (195):

The war debate - A Hostage Situation

bloc posted on Apr 23, 2007 | views: 1462 | Tags: politics, bush, iraq, Congress Versus Bush, war, lies, Administration, Moyer, Saudi, Israel, branding, How about Bush and his brother stealing the 2000 election, krugman, paul krugman, new york times, There Goes the Neighborhood

There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it’s a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders — the troops — if his demands aren’t met.

If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: by a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Mr. Bush, to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq.

But this isn’t a normal political dispute. Mr. Bush isn’t really trying to win the argument on the merits. He’s just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.

source



send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • silverwhisper said on Apr 23, 2007....
    unfortunately, i am not a member of timesselect and hence cannot read the op-ed. that's a darned shame.

    ed
  • muckpar said on Apr 23, 2007....
    Bush's arrogance and stubborness is simply overwhelming.  Congress needs to go ahead and pass the bill, let Old Stubborn veto it then they will have done their job as America wants. Then provide money for the troops to defend themselves, and let's see him veto that one. 
  • anonymous said on Apr 23, 2007....
    Thats right as we plunge deeper and deeper into the black hole of a money pit we call a war we as a nation flush our health and welfare and future down the perverbial toilet The more we spend the less we have to take care of the sick and disabled we need to stop this maddness and bring our troops home close the borders and heal the country and then when and if we accomplish this task then and only then shall we stick our noses into other countries businesses
  • CalmDown said on Apr 23, 2007....
    Is that an alarm blaring in the background? The left controlled congress is being careful not to end the war financially, and risk the president being correct thus fueling an inevitable loss in the '08 presidential run, and producing a global size bill board stating "AMERICA HAS NO POWER OR RESOLVE" to the rest of the planet. The president and most of the right are trying to save face on there past decisions, and buy time for a possible acceptable outcome. Hang on to your hats boys & girls! The storm is rough, but like all storms it will go away!
  • bloc said on Apr 23, 2007....
    @calmdown
    I don't think I agree with that scenario.
  • CalmDown said on Apr 23, 2007....
    @ bloc, It's not a scenario, it's the same old game of blood-chess that politicians have been playing since General George's inauguration, just insert new cartoon characters. pulling troops out will only serve to pacify the rabid left(by humiliating the ferocious right) until the next fiasco that warrants a soap box and a traffic cone. Ask the center what they think. Ask the troops what they think. I'll wager, you don't agree with them either.
  • bloc said on Apr 23, 2007....
    "pulling troops out will only serve to pacify the rabid left"

    the majority of american's want the troops out. Are the majority of american's rabid leftists?
  • CalmDown said on Apr 23, 2007....
    Certainly not bloc, Americans like all collective groups choose. a side in political debates. When things go south someone must take blame, in this case it's the president. So, in this case  the left and it's arsenal steps up to the plate and sounds the hysteria alarm, Americans, like children at a fire drill, tend to follow directions of whom ever seems to be in charge. The principal of this school, is the left, screaming "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED" etc.
      Do not get me wrong, the right are no saints here. This is a cluster-F! But when Americans make mistakes, we must learn to back each other up, not play divisive games, that expose our weaknesses to the rest of the world, this can only damage our image, and create newer and more daring enemies. Everyone wants to slay the dragon.
  • bloc said on Apr 23, 2007....
    "we must learn to back each other up, not play divisive games, that expose our weaknesses to the rest of the world, this can only damage our image, and create newer and more daring enemies."

    People tend to get angry when they are lied to. Then they get even more angry when the liar is caught and turns up his hubris. The blame for this debacle lies at the feet of Bush and the majority of american's think we should get out of Iraq. You may call them sheep, but it doesn't change the fact.
  • lioneljay said on Apr 23, 2007....
    @CalmDown, I would contend that the majority voiced its opinion of the Iraq "War" back when the Republicans still held the power; they did so by electing the opposition into power. So it wasn't at all a case of sheep following their apparent leader as you implied, but rather the voice of a moderately well-informed public.
  • CalmDown said on Apr 23, 2007....
     bloc, You made a valid and rational point, and it's true about the majority of Americans wanting an end to our presence in Iraq. I am almost inclined to agree with you on the entire issue. However, we do have a standing president that has rung the bell, don't agree with him? Impeach or simply wait for the end of his term, and vote someone in that better suits your beliefs.  Just like any president (right or left) we expect him to stay loyal to his party, and stand by his convictions. With out a strong figure head, how will the world view America? As a nation that cowers? or is tough but has no stamina? As a former Marine, I can tell you that nothing is as important to the troops as serving honorably, bringing home another win for his/her nation.  Perhaps I am wrong, bloc but I feel very uneasy about possibly damaging our place in the world because 60% of Americans decided they had enough(this month)   Perhaps we can agree to disagree?
  • kelly said on Apr 23, 2007....
    On a side note,  did you hear what George Bush said about Harry Reid today?

    "I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job," Bush said.

    I laughed my butt off when I heard that!  How can he even say something like that without blushing?  How can he say that with a straight face?  Oh, man....
  • WILDWILL said on Apr 24, 2007....
    Posturing is not enough to stop those that want you dead! 
     
    Will
  • bloc said on Apr 24, 2007....
    "Just like any president (right or left) we expect him to stay loyal to his party, and stand by his convictions."

    I expect them to stay loyal to the consitution first!

    "Perhaps I am wrong, bloc but I feel very uneasy about possibly damaging our place in the world because 60% of Americans decided they had enough(this month)"

    What is the alternative? Let me be precise. How can more military forces stop Iraqi factions from hating each other? There is no military solution to this that I can see.
  • CalmDown said on Apr 25, 2007....
    What is the alternative? Let me be precise. How can more military forces stop Iraqi factions from hating each other? There is no military solution to this that I can see.
     
    *  There is no alternative! As long as we continue to combat insurgents, And help Iraqis, not rebuild but create something they have never had before; we send send a message to our enemies, potential enemies, and the rest of the world, That although our children are fat, our government is divided, and we seem to have micro-attention spans, We are still in charge! We never give up, and this will never change!
       This will encourage the Iraqis, much like a young artist would love Picasso as his mentor.
        This won't be easy. Iraq is a divided nation that was only held together by tyranny. I feel that eventually, there must be some separation, perhaps a strong federal government with 3 states, Baghdad as the capital and 3 sub-capitals,
    equal representation, distribution of natural resources to all states and certainly, a policy to teach the youth and adults alike, to accept and tolerate each other.
        sounds like a fairytale, but the alternative brings nightmares of catastrophe:
      We pull out, Iran funds the Shiites, Shiites kill as many Sunni's as they can, Iran gets nukes, an arms race begins, civil war, funded and sanctioned by every middle east country: the Saudis get the bomb, Turkey, Syria, Jordan. Mean while the Shiites and the Sunnis only have one thing in common: They both hate Israel! Here we go again, back to the middle east we go, to fix a now festering set of new problems. While the rest of the world looks at us and points in horror: "AMERICA,LOOK WHAT YOU DID!" If you don't believe this a likely scenario, you have not been paying attention, not only will we no longer be there to prevent this disaster, but will have left in shame, appearing weak, pretty much, inviting chaos. these people are not the Soviets, there are no western values, I'm confident they'll push the button.        
  • bloc said on Apr 25, 2007....
    so what your saying is that this war was the worse strategic mistake in american history?

    After many years the situation has only gotten worse. Bush has done nothing but screw things up. I see no reason to believe that more military force will achieve anything else and no reason to believe that Bush could achieve it even if it were possible.

    Also, pulling our troops out does not prevent us from engaging in diplomacy with the coutries of hte region to prevent the scenario you laid out. You said that there is no military solution. Why then are our troops required?
  • CalmDown said on Apr 26, 2007....
    * It is possible that you are absolutely correct about the Iraqi invasion being a colossal blunder. I never claimed to be the advocate for everything that conservatives  do.
    I would not have done it,  and if so,  would have  made  it  far more  devastating, keeping in mind that others are watching.
       But let's not pretend that this was not coming anyway! When my unit and I , left Kuwait in 1991, we all felt an uneasy, "something is not right" feeling in our stomachs. although thrilled to be going home, we were certain that the job was not done.  Some of us discussed whether or not we'd be back in matter of months, while others wagered that our children or grandchildren would return to Iraq and finish the fight, that  Bush1 and the "omnipotent" UN decided was enough punishment. so, Sadam cleaned up, occasionally shot at our Air force, and rolled back into bed with the noble UN. Iraq went back to business: thumbing it's nose at the U.S.starving it's citizens, and threatening it's neighbors. 
       I believe the reason, that so many Americans such as yourself, think that diplomacy alone, is the answer to the middle east question is that you do not understand these people. If you respect their religion ,it means that you fear them! If you attack them, you are Satan! If you coddle them, you are  either  scared, or you are tricking them because you are Satan! They will always take our hand outs and always bite the hand that feeds them.
      Have you not witnessed every sanction ever  imposed in the middle east, fail miserably?  That is the land of malcontents! They only talk to squeeze profit from the great Satan(you & I) while plotting our destruction. The only recourse is an iron fisted response. Only power and violence are respected in this region.
      To stay or go? mistake or not we are there, protecting a aiding a possibly  semi- friendly oasis in the middle east. Every day we stay, every day we endure all that happens there, we humiliate the insurgents, and  strike fear in  the hearts of the people that hate us. If we leave, I predict the opposite!   
     
  • bloc said on Apr 26, 2007....
    "Have you not witnessed every sanction ever  imposed in the middle east, fail miserably? "

    Did saddam have WMD? Seems like some of the sanctions worked, no?

    "every day we endure all that happens there, we humiliate the insurgents, and  strike fear in  the hearts of the people that hate us."

    Are we talking about the same place? We aren't striking fear in anyone in Iraq. If anything, we've made them more bold. We aren't humiliating the insurgents either.

    I understand what your saying, I just don't see it that way. What I see is a war that isn't achieving anything good, that will cost our children dearly as were paying for it with debt, and that will weaken us strategically.
    We'll have to agree to disagree as you said earlier.
  • Donnie1960 said on Apr 26, 2007....
    Congress will use the war for political gain. I believe the troops should remain there. If not, we will end up fighting the terrorists here in our own country.
  • Donnie1960 said on Apr 26, 2007....
    Posted
  • bloc said on Apr 26, 2007....
    @donnie
    how does fighting in Iraq stop terrorists from coming here? More importantly, why invade Iraq when none of the terrorists involved in attacking us were from or related to Iraq? Why not fight them in Afghanistan?

    But seriously, having troops in Iraq doesn't stop terrorists from coming here in any what that I can see.
  • Donnie1960 said on Apr 27, 2007....
    Well, maybe the Democrats shouldn't have voted for the war in the first place, including Hillary Clinton. Then think of this: Bush got reelected in 2004, recieving 59 million of the popular vote, which is more than any other president that served office in history, while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. Go figure. Today, they bash Bush for going to war there. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 because we are fighting the terrorists over there, rather than here. We are fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan also. We invaded Iraq at the time because everyone thought Saddam had WMD's. The jury is still out that he did have them, especially when he didn't allow weapons inspectors in his country for 4 years, and especially when he used chemical weapons against his own people along with their war with Iran. And also, especially when his own general said that he indeed had WMD's and that they were moved to Syria. So you have the right to believe Saddam didn't have them, but there is still documentation out there that said he did. There's also facts that terrorists had formed training camps inside of Iraq, and their were reports that Saddam was trying to buy nuclear weapons. Remember he killed and tortured over one million people, invaded a country which was against international law and was a threat to the oil wells there. I think that we had good reason to invade and remove him from power. Now today, things aren't going well, so the Democrats will bash Bush for going to war in the first place, after they all voted for it. all for political gain. Good day.
  • bloc said on Apr 27, 2007....
    many of your talking points have been thoroughly debunked. I don't have time to do a line item debunking.

    "Bush got reelected in 2004, recieving 59 million of the popular vote, which is more than any other president that served office in history"

    HAHAHAHA
    I hope you see why that is meaningless. I let you think about it for a bit.
  • kelly said on Apr 27, 2007....
    Um, is it the same reason that Hall & Oates could claim they were more popular than the Beatles?  :-)
  • Donnie1960 said on Apr 28, 2007....
    BLOC . Meaningless? It tells me that 59 million people approved the Iraqi invasion since they reelected Bush. And in 2003, 18 months prior to the election, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and the rest of the gang gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Now they are all bashing Bush for it. . Now this is something to laugh about. . I have to say, the only candidate that has the right to bash Bush is Borack Hussein Obama, because he voted against the war.
  • CalmDown said on Apr 28, 2007....
    @Donnie:

    Shoulda-Coulda-Woulda, It matters little at this point, whether or not  invading Iraq was the right decision. bloc's point is, it is the basis for why we should leave  now! I disagree whole heartedly, If a latter or engine company respond to the report of a 4 alarm blaze, and it turns out to be a 2 alarm fire, should they  pack up and go home, letting the place burn?
      
  • sparks78 said on Apr 28, 2007....
    Did the President and Administration Lie?

    Do YOU want to know the truth?

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

    Regards,
    Rob
  • bloc said on Apr 28, 2007....
    @donnie, it's meaningless because the implication is intellectually dishonest. 

    "Then think of this: Bush got reelected in 2004, recieving 59 million of the popular vote, which is more than any other president that served office in history"

    Why exactly would you point out that it's more votes than anyone in history? What is the implication in that? Is it honest? Who got the 2nd most votes in history?
  • CalmDown said on Apr 28, 2007....
    @ Sparks,
      Sure we should know the truth. We should not speculate, accusing the executive branch of the U.S.  of gross negligence is one thing. A conspiracy theory, that places the president and company in a sinister situation, with no  known plausible motive, is possible! But highly improbable. In other  words  it is probably as likely that  Sadam  and  George  cooked this hate/hate  relationship, together  to spike  oil prices  and  scare  the  crap  out of everyone.  What would the most powerful man in the free world be doing tangling himself in twisted web of lies, and deceit? For  oil? For his friends?  Vengeance for daddy?
      This is the president of the united  states! If you were  him would you risk your legacy? How history would view you, for anything?
       Although, I've grown to loath the acronym, WMD, here goes: I personally did not expect to find substantial amounts of WMDs. Our government (ALL OF IT) and most of the planet, did.
       If there was any truth to all these theories about the NY-Times, Cheney, or video "proof" The left controlled legislative branch, would not hesitate to impeach, fine, and possibly imprison such a dastardly culprit. This is not happening because it is simply hysterical rhetoric.  Imagine if all the alarmist turn out to be wrong, Hillary will say"That is why I voted for the war" Edwards will say " Hey, that was my line" and Obama will say a whole lot about nothing ( as usual)* Welcome to the '08 election circus!

  • bloc said on Apr 28, 2007....
    @calm
    where did you get this conspiracy theory stuff? I glanced at sparks link and didn't see in conpsiracy theory.
  • CalmDown said on Apr 28, 2007....
    bloc,
     
      The links name was "buying the war" and  although is displayed in a benign, nonpartisan form,  goes on to discredit every step that the government made before and during the war. Moyers, Then moves on to blaming the media for dropping the ball, and not exposing wrong doings,  clearly implying that the government was  either  completely incompetent,( which I touched on) or purposely deceitful, which although possible, defies reason.   
  • Donnie1960 said on Apr 29, 2007....
    BLOC You seem to miss the point. For example, Hillary is bashing Bush about the war, yet she gave him authority to invade Iraq. This will hurt her come election time, as Obama (A Nobody) is already closing in on her. So, I can't see how it would be meaningless when I said the majority of people voted for the war when they are now bashing Bush for it. Hillary may not even win the nomination come Febuary. As you can see, Obama was the only one who actually voted against the war, which has given him momentum. Don't you get it? Bush got 59 million votes while we have been in Iraq for 18 months. It's the most in history, but more meaningful, it tells you that you can't bash him for the war since everyone voted for it. As for using the fact, "most in history," it's in defense to show the people that are now bashing him for the war when the the majority of the country voted for it. Why do the paragraphs dissappear here after I post to the room? Anyone?
  • sparks78 said on Apr 29, 2007....
    Well, it looks like there were at least a couple who were open minded enough to look or see the Moyer's report. I'm an old Vet myself, I spent a year in Saudi in the 1950's. I was in a position that I traveled to several middle eastern countries and we were treated very well. Today I wouldn't dare step foot in one of the countries, what happened? Could it be because we lined up with Israel and turned our back on the Arab countries. How many billions have we poured in to Israel, how much help have we given the Palestinians? We're in a mess over there and I fear my grandchildren will have to go in and clean it up. We don't understand the Arab psyche! Just my thoughts
  • lioneljay said on Apr 29, 2007....
    @CalmDown, I don't have any trouble believing that the Bush administration was intentionally deceitful about the case for invading Iraq. This is the same bunch that would not allow any public knowledge of the actions of the group that Cheney put together to develop the administration's energy policy. Secrecy seems to be more important to them than anything. And yet, in our republic transparency of governance is one of the necessary bulwarks of freedom.

    I watched much of the Moyers report the other night and have stayed as well informed as possible about how this invasion came to be. It's quite clear to me that they were intentionally deceitful in order to sell the invasion.
  • bloc said on Apr 29, 2007....
    "It's the most in history, but more meaningful, it tells you that you can't bash him for the war since everyone voted for it."

    Again, do you realize why that is an intellectually dishonest point? Who got the 2nd most in history?

    Also, you can bash him if his administration mislead people about the circumstances prior to the war, and that is the case.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 03, 2007....
    Mislead? The evidence suggest that Saddam had WMD's. Any president that served under those circumstances would have removed Saddam from power. Bush reacted just like any other president would have. This is why they all voted for the war in the first place. Being narrow minded to believe that Saddam didn't have WMD"s is the typical liberal way of thinking. There was enough evidence that Saddam had to be removed not only based on that he had WMD"s but because of a lot of other horrible things this guy has done. "Most in History" while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. So you find that not to be meaningful at all? I find it to be surreal!
  • bloc said on May 03, 2007....
    "The evidence suggest that Saddam had WMD's. Any president that served under those circumstances would have removed Saddam from power."

    No, most presidents wouldn't start a war against a country that might one day be a threat in the future. That's called in immoral war by all sane definitions of just war.

    ""Most in History" while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. So you find that not to be meaningful at all?"

    Hehe, no, it's not meaningful. Again I ask, who got the second most in history?
  • Donnie1960 said on May 04, 2007....
    "No, most presidents wouldn't start a war against a country that might one day be a threat in the future. That's called in immoral war by all sane definitions of just war." Yes. All voted for the war in 2003. That's called going to war to remove a tyrant who was a threat to world peace. "Hehe, no, it's not meaningful. Again I ask, who got the second most in history?" "hehehe, yes it's very meaningful. 59 million votes while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. hehehe, live it, learn it, and remember it." hehehe
  • Donnie1960 said on May 04, 2007....
    59 million votes for bush in 2003 while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. Live it, learn it, remember it.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 04, 2007....
    oops, meant 2004. hehe
  • bloc said on May 04, 2007....
    Ok, since you can't answer a simple question.

    John Kerry got the 2nd most votes in history. It's meaningless because there are more people now than there were in the past. You're either an idiot or you're intentionally trying to deceive people by making intellectually dishonest arguments. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Btw, are you sure you want to use public opinion to make an argument? If so then the public is overwhelmingly in favor of getting out of Iraq NOW and they overwhelmingly believe that Bush deceived us into this war.

    Live it, learn it, remember it.
  • sparks78 said on May 05, 2007....
    I had a friend who has since pasted away. He was a very close friend but he had one fault that always bothered me. He had tunnel vision. I asked him one day if he had a large elephant branded on his butt when he was born. At first he didn't get the gist of what I was asking. When he did, he "mooned me". It seems there is another person blogging here that has the same problem, maybe he will "moon me"? It's too bad he can't shake it off! Regards all, I've heard enough shortsidedness in this blog! An old Vet
  • Donnie1960 said on May 07, 2007....
    Bloc You simply don't seem to get it. Let me try again. Bush got more votes than any other president while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. John Kerry got 55 million votes , because people are that dumb. Look at him today. Is there a reason why he decided not to run in 2008? I rest my case. The liberals believe Bush decieved us into the war, but he didn't. At the time he acted just as any president would have based on such evidence. This is why they all voted for the war and gave Bush the go-ahead. This includes your girlfriend, Hillary and her husband that caused 9/11. Once again, I will type it slowly... Bush got more votes than any other president while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. Can you link the two? This leads me to say that I think you are getting confused. The majority of people feel that Bush has mishandled the war rather than wanting to pull out of Iraq. Most people want us there but do not like the way the war is being handled. I don't think waving a white flag to our enemy would be a good idea. It's common sense. Face it, we will be in Iraq for a long duration. It's horrifying, yes. But we need to be there.
  • sparks78 said on May 07, 2007....
    It is a known fact and has been proven that Bush and his cohorts stole the 2000 election. His brother and the secretary of state of Florida made sure that he won, for her services she received her reward. The Republican appointed Supreme Court wouldn't allow a recount so the right person could win. It's time for him and Cheney to go! The administration made a fool of Colin Power at the UN, where is he now? Rice took his place and she bows down to everything that Bush and Cheney ask of her. Sorry Donnie, you've been branded!
  • bloc said on May 07, 2007....
    @sparks
    did you see the moyer's interview I posted a week or so ago? The one with jon stewart? Check it out if you haven't seen it.

    "Bush got more votes than any other president while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. Can you link the two?"

    Yeah, there are more people now!!!! He got 51% of the popular vote. I.e. he barely got more votes than kerry. Wow, you're dense.
  • sparks78 said on May 07, 2007....
    When there is a war on, in most cases the residing president will be re-elected. 

    I guess that interview is posted on the PBS site.  I'll check it out.
  • bloc said on May 07, 2007....
    here's a link. Sorry for not putting it in my last comment.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 12, 2007....
    bloc, that isn't the point that he barely got more votes than Kerry. For the last time, Bush got 59 million votes, more than any president in history, while we were 18 months into the Iraq war. I can't make it as simple as that. I'm not the dense one here.
  • silverwhisper said on May 12, 2007....
    actually, yes you are. look at the percentages. you're trying to make a point out of a non-point.

    ed
  • sparks78 said on May 12, 2007....
    Donnie name the presidents that were legally defeated when a war was going on when they were in office!

    Bush stole the election in 2000 so he had no business even being in the race in 2004, period.

    Still can't get that elephant brand off of your butt, it's too bad you have tunnel vision.

    An old Vet who came up during the depression that the republican "Hoover" did nothing to get us out of.  A Democrat, President Roosevelt put people back to work and the country survived.

    If the Bush Administration continues continues to sink the beloved country of ours deeper in debt with his illegal war that his lies got us into your grandchildren and mine, if you have any will be unable to repay the debt and this country will slip into another deep depression.

    Maybe you should take a good look at the history of this country.
  • bloc said on May 13, 2007....
    @donnie
    the fact that he got the most votes is a result of there being more people now than ever. You prove my point by saying that he barely won.

    If he had the highest percentage ever it would be a valid point.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 13, 2007....
    Bloc... Again that is not the point that Bush barely won. 

    Again, Bush got more votes in history while we were 18 months into the Iraq war.  So, you cannot bash him for going to war as you were doing in this room, but you can bash him for the mistakes that he has made while being at war.  

    Did you know that the Democratic Congress has a 35% approval rating?  And do you know why?  It's because they also have no plan except wanting to raise the white flag to the enemy.  




  • Donnie1960 said on May 13, 2007....
    Sparks....

    So, Bush stole the 2000 election, or was it because people that never voted before didn't know how to vote?   They simply couldn't follow the rules regarding which precinct they were mandated to vote at.  Did Bush steal the 2004 election as well? 

    So, you say Bush lied?   Wrong.  If he lied, he would have been impeached.  He may have made a mistake, but documentation still exists that Saddam had WMD's.   So, the jury is still out that Bush may have made a mistake in going to war.  

    Maybe you should take a look at reality.  We will be in Iraq for the duration because we have to be.   If we leave there, then you can expect another attack on American soil. 

    The Democratic Congress is just as bad as Bush for not coming up with a plan to win the war.   The only solution your people have is to wave the white flag and run from the enemy.   This is why Congress today has only a 35% approval rating. 

    And who gives a darn about what happened under Roosevelt.  What's important is what is happening today. 

  • sparks78 said on May 13, 2007....
    Now let me see..... Let's get some facts straight here and then let us decide.

    I guess I was wrong, Bush's brother and the Supreme Court stole the election for Dubba. 

    G.W. didn't start the war during his second term, he started it during his first term and then told the "so called" enemy to "bring it on".  I believe a little later he stood on and aircraft carrier and stated that "the war is over and we won" or something to that effect.

    He and his cohorts leaked lies about WMDs to the New York Times, Washington Post and other National papers and after the papers published those lies they could say "That's what the press said".

    If those aren't lies I guess you don't know what a lie is.  I pray that nothing happens to G.W., if it did we would have another crook as president and that would be Cheney.  His firm has milked the American economy dry and provided very little that was promised to our fighting men and women in Iraq. 

    Maybe you don't recognize a "crook" when you see one?????

    I spent a whole year in Saudi when I was in the Air Force and you and the leaders of this country don't understand the pysche of the Arab Nations.  They are very patient and they will drag us through this mess for as long as we stay there and that might be as long as idiots like the Bush clan is in power in Washington.

    Oh, maybe it won't go on for ever and maybe my grandchildren and yours won't be murdered while trying to clean up the mess G.W. and his crew have caused.

    It is clear to see that you have tunnel vision and will never concede that you are wrong in your thinking, just like our beloved leader!

    This is my last post so you won't have to read what I have to say anymore.

    I'm sure you will be thinking "good riddance" and you can go on trying to defend your beloved leader.  It's too bad you can't get rid of that elephant brand on your butt!

    One last thing.... If Roosevelt hadn't pulled this nation out of the great depression where do you thing you and your family would be today?  The Republican president "Hoover" sat on his arse and listened to the wealthy business leaders and did nothing to help the people of this nation when they were in trouble.

    I say "Amen"
  • Donnie1960 said on May 14, 2007....
    Sparks....You sound like a true liberal, or shall I say a "moonbat."  Do you know what a moonbat is?   Moonbat - a left wing radical who believes there was a conspiracy by George Bush, Dick Chaney and Hiliburton to bring down the World Trade Centers. 

    People like you still believe that the Democrats got hosed in their previous elections.  Do you think they stole the election in 2004 as well?  

    First, what did the Supreme Court and Jeb steal?   The votes were totally counted at the end.  The final count was that Al Gore lost the election by 3,000 votes due to really dumb people because they couldn't follow "voting laws."   In other words, these people simply didn't know how to vote in Dade County, Florida.   The turnout was in record numbers that year in which a lot of people voted that never voted before.   Live with it and accept defeat and the facts, my friend. 

    Bush didn't start any war.  He felt, just as everyone else did at the time, that Saddam was a threat to us and world peace.   He used chemical and biological weapons with his war with Iran, killed and tortured over a million of his own people including women and children and invaded a country which was against international law.  This was indeed acts of war, which  leads me to say that In 2002, all your people including Hillary Clinton gave Bush the go-ahead to remove Saddam.   And in 2004, Bush got more votes than any other president in history while we were 18 months into the Iraq war.  So, what does this tell you? 

    Get it through your head.  Bush has low approval ratings, not for going to war but for his mishandling of it, which leads me to to your next remark... saying that Bush lied.

    There's a difference between lying and making a mistake.  If Bush lied he would have been impeached, unlike when Bill Clinton did when he lied under oath.    

    As for him making a mistake, maybe he did, maybe he didn't.  The jury is still out on that, as there is documentation out there that Saddam did have WMD's.   So said, Saddam's former top General Sada.   And it doesn't take a brain why weapons inspectors weren't allowed into Iraq for 4 years.   Was there something to hide?  

    Isn't the New York Times losing business these days for bias reporting?    There's a lot of liberal medias out there and the NY Times tops the list.  

    Whenever there's a war, yeah there are casualties and yeah it will cost a fortune.  But it's a war that is protecting us from another attack on American soil.   We will be there for the duration, so get used to it.  

    I don't like wars, and i don't want wars.  But if it means, killing people who are a threat to Americans, go for it!  

    Since Bush got the approval from everyone to go to war, it's wrong to bash him for it when things aren't going well.   Instead you should be bashing him for his mishandling of the war.  

    The Democratic Congress has a 35% approval rating because their only solution is to raise the white flag to our enemy.  They will only fund the troops if they pull out in a few months.   How is this going to look when electing a new president next year for this party? 

    People like you enjoy bashing their own country during a time of war.   Don't feel a shame because there are many out there that want to believe in such nonsense.  I look at it this way: Your just another enemy that this country has to deal with during a time of war. 

    So after reading your beliefs I say to this country, "God Bless America."  And that's the bottom line.   













  • bloc said on May 14, 2007....
    "And it doesn't take a brain why weapons inspectors weren't allowed into Iraq for 4 years.   Was there something to hide?"

    Would we allow foreign inspectors into our country? Do we have anything to hide?

    "The Democratic Congress has a 35% approval rating because their only solution is to raise the white flag to our enemy."

    source that because I don't htink it's true.

    "And in 2004, Bush got more votes than any other president in history while we were 18 months into the Iraq war.  So, what does this tell you? "

    This tells me that you need to learn how to think.
  • sparks78 said on May 14, 2007....
    Sorry Donnie,

    You can lie  to yourself all you want and I don't believe you will ever take your blinders off.  Have you opened your eyes long enough to see what you're beloved G.W.'s rating is?  You know  good and well that all of the votes in the state of Florida weren't counted.  Votes that were dug up from the soldiers overseas had postmarks on them that weren't valid.  The Bushies did everything they could to disrupt the people who were counting the votes.  And they got the job done.

    My buddy who I enlisted with was killed in Korea and another buddy that I served with went through the Bataan Death march.

    I don't know how old you are and I don't care, have you ever seen someone killed in battle.

    War is a terrible thing and the warmongers in Washington will  be voted out in the next election.  They are  nothing but scum who are trying in vain to prove that they were right in pushing our country  into the mess we're in and all they care about is power and money.  Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents that ever served this nation.

    Amen,  I'm out of her for good and I won't have to read any more of your crap!
  • Donnie1960 said on May 15, 2007....
    Sparks... You said that before, that you weren't returning.  Why did you return, for another beating?

    I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, but that is not at all true regarding how you believe Gore got hosed in the 2000 election.  I'm not going to keep repeating the facts to you on why he lost.   If people knew how to vote, then maybe Gore would have pulled it off.   The votes were indeed tallied at the end, and Gore lost in Florida.  Why can't liberals accept the facts on any issue?   Were the elections fixed in 2004 also? 

    Your people tried to not include our military soldiers to vote because they were all for the war, as are most of them today. You have it backwards.  

    If you can remember what I wrote, I did write that I do not like wars either, but when our own people are being killed and threatened at home we have to react instead of being on defense.  Under Clinton, we were always on defense.  This is why we got attacked on our soil on 9/11.  I cannot imagine Hillary Clinton as our next prez. 
    If she wins, you best begin by storing canned foods in your basement.  

    I understand the pain you sought when soldiers got killed.  It's not nice, but we are at war in protecting this country from another attack.  

    I am 46 years old, and i am editor and Chief of DNN - a news affiliate that provides news the fair, balanced and unafraid way. 

    If you cannot accept the facts then you shouldn't come back here.  Hopefully, you have made the right choice this time. 
  • silverwhisper said on May 15, 2007....
    editor and chief? that's an unusual pair of titles.

    ed
  • Donnie1960 said on May 15, 2007....
    Would we allow foreign inspectors into our country? Do we have anything to hide?

    The answer to your question, bloc is no and no.  

    The U.N. cannot trust other countries that pose a threat to the world.  For example, Iran has threaten to wipe Israel off the map, while at the same time are enriching uranium.  I mean, are you comfortable with that?   Should they be allowed to continue enriching uranium? 

    You simply cannot allow WMD's to be in unsafe hands.  Period.  

    "And in 2004, Bush got more votes than any other president in history while we were 18 months into the Iraq war.  So, what does this tell you? "

    You simply don't get it, bloc.  All liberals never do.  



  • silverwhisper said on May 15, 2007....
    oo, sweeping generalizations! woo-hoo!

    ed
  • lioneljay said on May 15, 2007....
    Let's take care of this silliness about Dubbya being such a great vote-getter in the middle of a war.

    First off, 1964: Lynon Johnson won the presidency with 61.1 percent of the vote and the then widest popular margin in the 20th century—more than 15 million votes, or a margin of 22.6%.

    Then, 1972: Nixon won the election over George McGovern in a landslide, gaining 60.7% of the popular vote and a 23.2% margin of victory, or about 18 million votes more than his opponent.

    Both of these elections were held when the country was mired in the Viet Nam war. Both were sitting presidents, as was Dubbya in 2004. However, here are the same numbers and percentages for Dubbya in '04"

    Percentage of total popular vote won: 50.7%
    Margin of victory, as a percentage: 1.4%

    So, to make the claim that Dubbya performed more spectacularly in the '04 election than any previous sitting president, despite being mired in a war, is not only ludicrous but evidence of sloppy thinking.
  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    or dishonest thinking!
  • Donnie1960 said on May 15, 2007....
    Lion...

    The point is that Bush still got all those votes while we were 18 months into the Iraq war, meaning most were all for invading Iraq.  That's all.  

    Today, the people on the left that are running for office have changed their stance and bashing Bush for going to war.   They are the ones that gave Bush the go-ahead in 2002 to invade Iraq. 

    Instead they should be bashing Bush for his mishandling of the war.   You should take a look at the latest approval rating for the Democratic Congress.  Their ratings are 35% because they chose not to fund the troops unless they pull out.  Go figure. 






  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    generalizations are a sure way to embarrass yourself. I was against the war before we went. The majority of american's are opposed to the war now.

    Also, most people understand that people might change their mind about something once they find that they were misled originally.  
  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    one other thing, lionel showed that you're an idiot for repeatedly saying that bush got the most votes ever as some kind of point.
  • lioneljay said on May 15, 2007....
    Donnie1960:

    1) it's not unusual for a sitting president to be re-elected when we're at war. But you initially stated the following, "Then think of this: Bush got reelected in 2004, recieving 59 million of the popular vote, which is more than any other president that served office in history, while we were 18 months into the Iraq war." which was clearly an attempt to glorify the results of the election, as if they proved anything about Bush. But you didn't do your homework and grossly overstated your case.

    2) Much of the nation accepted what the President said about Iraqi capabilities. The administration had established an environment in which anyone who criticized them was branded a traitor so any politician who voted against the initiative to use force against Iraq at the time (and there were a few) was taking an immense risk. I won't hold it against someone that they were duped by the administration nor that they chose to compromise in order to stay in office. That's their job.

    3) No democrat is praising Bush for his handling of the war. They're all going after Bush for how he has managed this initiative. Even McCain is critical of the administration's handling of the war.

    4) The approval rating for Congress is never high - ever. And it's ludicrous to assign any single cause to a complex statistic such as overall approval ratings.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 15, 2007....
    I was against the war before we went.

    Bloc, Where is Kerry now after making such a remark? 

    The majority of american's are opposed to the war now.

    Bloc, the majority of Americans are for coming up with a plan for winning the war, then getting out.  Why do you think the Democratic Congress has a 35% approval rating? 

    Also, most people understand that people might change their mind about something once they find that they were misled originally.

    Misled?  Valid evidence was there, which is why everyone voted for the war.  Bush acted like any other president would have to remove Saddam.  Now that things aren't going well, yes you have the right to bash Bush for it, meaning he has mishandled the war.  Get it right. 

    one other thing, lionel showed that you're an idiot for repeatedly saying that bush got the most votes ever as some kind of point.

    Bloc, you are an idiot for not comprehending what I said.    Lion listed all the presidents that got a lot of votes during a time of war.  What does that tell you?  Think now.   Well, all liberals we know, can't.  





  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    i think you are a troll at this point.

    "Lion listed all the presidents that got a lot of votes during a time of war.  What does that tell you?"

    it tells me that your point was clearly refuted.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 15, 2007....
    1) it's not unusual for a sitting president to be re-elected when we're at war. But you initially stated the following, "Then think of this: Bush got reelected in 2004, recieving 59 million of the popular vote, which is more than any other president that served office in history, while we were 18 months into the Iraq war." which was clearly an attempt to glorify the results of the election, as if they proved anything about Bush. But you didn't do your homework and grossly overstated your case.

    I overstated that Bush got 59 million votes while we were 18 months into the Iraq war?  What homework didn't I do?   What is your case here?  

    2) Much of the nation accepted what the President said about Iraqi capabilities. The administration had established an environment in which anyone who criticized them was branded a traitor so any politician who voted against the initiative to use force against Iraq at the time (and there were a few) was taking an immense risk. I won't hold it against someone that they were duped by the administration nor that they chose to compromise in order to stay in office. That's their job.

    The nation accepted to reelect Bush because they felt more safe under him.  Fact.   Safety was the reason why Bush got reelected along with continuing to fight an evil force over there rather than here.   Get it right.  

    4) The approval rating for Congress is never high - ever. And it's ludicrous to assign any single cause to a complex statistic such as overall approval ratings.

    If it is never high then why is it big news that today Congress has an approval rating of only 35%?  In that case, isn't a president's approval rating always low during a time of war?  

    Not for nothing, Lion, you simply don't make any sense with no back up behind what you wrote above.   Try again.  
  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    "which is more than any other president that served office in history"

    Because there are more people you retard. But by all means, continue making that point. You only look dumber each time you make it.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 15, 2007....
    "which is more than any other president that served office in history"


    Bloc, what happened to the end of my sentence, above that you didn't complete?  "While we were 18 months into the Iraq war."  You forgot to complete my sentence. Why?  

    Because there are more people you retard. But by all means, continue making that point. You only look dumber each time you make it. 

    More people voted that didn't vote before because they feared for their safety and the safety of this country.  

    Stop name calling, please.   Be nice.   I don't call you names, so don't call me names.   If you can't accept the facts, then leave.  

    Well, this is my lesson for the day to all you liberals.  Have a good one. 
  • silverwhisper said on May 15, 2007....
    donnie, your reading skills are substandard.

    ed
  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    "More people voted that didn't vote before because they feared for their safety and the safety of this country.   "

    No, more people exist now therefore more people voted!!! Do you truly not get this? Bush won by a tiny margin, that's lionel's point that you completely ignored.


  • lioneljay said on May 15, 2007....
    Let's try this one more time.

    1) it's not unusual for a sitting president to be re-elected when we're at war. But you initially stated the following, "Then think of this: Bush got reelected in 2004, recieving 59 million of the popular vote, which is more than any other president that served office in history, while we were 18 months into the Iraq war." which was clearly an attempt to glorify the results of the election, as if they proved anything about Bush. But you didn't do your homework and grossly overstated your case.

    I overstated that Bush got 59 million votes while we were 18 months into the Iraq war?  What homework didn't I do?   What is your case here?  
    Your point appears to have been that Bush's election victory was substantial - greater than any sitting wartime president in history you said - so don't deny that. I showed you that his margin of victory was tiny in comparison to both LBJ and Nixon and yet you harp on the raw numbers. Well, by that thinking my house must be five times bigger than it was in 1970 because it's worth five times as much. So far all you've done to refute me is to repeat yourself. Instead, why not clarify your point or just accept that you were wrong?

    2) Much of the nation accepted what the President said about Iraqi capabilities. The administration had established an environment in which anyone who criticized them was branded a traitor so any politician who voted against the initiative to use force against Iraq at the time (and there were a few) was taking an immense risk. I won't hold it against someone that they were duped by the administration nor that they chose to compromise in order to stay in office. That's their job.

    The nation accepted to reelect Bush because they felt more safe under him.  Fact.   Safety was the reason why Bush got reelected along with continuing to fight an evil force over there rather than here.   Get it right.  
    You have no basis for making this connection. It's your interpretation of why Bush was re-elected and you offer no proof for your interpretation. Sorry, but your opinion isn't enough to sway me.

    4) The approval rating for Congress is never high - ever. And it's ludicrous to assign any single cause to a complex statistic such as overall approval ratings.

    If it is never high then why is it big news that today Congress has an approval rating of only 35%?  In that case, isn't a president's approval rating always low during a time of war?  
    First off, you seem to be the only one who sees that the current approval rating of Congress is "big news" as you put it. I don't see any headlines to that effect, even in the WSJ. And no, a president's approval rating isn't always low during times of war or similar. Look at Bush's ratings immediately after 9/11 and after the invasion of Afghanistan.

    Not for nothing, Lion, you simply don't make any sense with no back up behind what you wrote above.   Try again.
    Everything that I have posted in rebutting your claims has been factual and without any judgmental words or interpretive phrases. What part of these facts doesn't make sense?
    One last thing: please, if you're going to address me by a shortened version of my screenname, please have the courtesy to follow the example of your fellow soulcasters who use "lionel."
  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    Lionel...

    As a liberal, you can have your beliefs.  You are entitled to them.  If you can comprehend what i wrote, your beliefs have been put to rest.  

    Sitting presidents in the past were elected again during wars, so what does that tell you?  You still fail to answer that question as well as many of the other questions and statements that I wrote. 

    I gave you the facts regarding the 2000 elections on how you believe the GOP stole the election, yet you don't want to believe why the Democrats lost. 

    So, it's no use.  You are a liberal, and these people can't accept the facts when handed to them.  






  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    No, more people exist now therefore more people voted!!! Do you truly not get this? Bush won by a tiny margin, that's lionel's point that you completely ignored.

    bloc...Once again, you fail to answer my question, why you only chose to write part of my sentence, "Bust got the most votes in history," instead of finishing it with: "while we were 18 months into the Iraq war."   Why did you ignore my question?? 

    Bush still won while we were 18 months into the Iraq war, my friend.  That is the point and not by how much he won.  And the  reason why he won because people chose safety first, which included our offense in Iraq.    Fact.    

    I never ignored lionel's question.  I answered it just like I did many times in the room and in this posting.  

    bloc.. I would not talk because you ignored a hell of a lot of things I wrote in which you never responded to.  
  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    First off, you seem to be the only one who sees that the current approval rating of Congress is "big news" as you put it. I don't see any headlines to that effect, even in the WSJ. And no, a president's approval rating isn't always low during times of war or similar. Look at Bush's ratings immediately after 9/11 and after the invasion of Afghanistan.

    Look at Tony Blair's rating and why he is stepping down.  

    Again i give you the facts regarding Congress's approval rating, and you don't believe me.   What's the use.   You only want to believe what you want to believe.  

    Go look it up, because why should I have to prove the facts to you when you never do likewise? 

    And here's another question for you:  The Democratic Congress wants to pull out of Iraq, yet their approval rating is 35%.  Now Mr. Lionel, what does this tell you?

    Let's see  how you can escape this one.  
  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    donnie, your reading skills are substandard.

    Sliverwhisper, you should get into the debate rather than always making meaningless  and idiotic remarks about myself.   That is sad.  

    Let it be 4 on 1 rather than 3 on 1, so I can teach you some things as well.  
  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....

    Poll: Congress, Bush Share Low Approval

    Friday, May 11, 2007

    By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer


    WASHINGTON —  People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs and little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.

    An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.

    The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.

    "It's mostly Iraq" plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. "These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an 'R' or a 'D' next to your name."

    Democrats agree that the problem is largely Iraq, which has dominated this year's session of Congress while producing little more than this month's Bush veto of a bill requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It has also overshadowed House-passed bills on stem cell research, student loans and other subjects that the White House opposes, they say.
  • silverwhisper said on May 16, 2007....
    you aren't interested in a debate, donnie. that's been abundantly clear since you began commenting here. had you been interested in an actual debate, you would have understood the points that both LJ and bloc made about the utter irrelevance of the number of votes. you keep pointing to the number of votes and fail to understand that number is meaningless.

    all you're really doing is parroting a very tired old republican party line.

    ed
  • lioneljay said on May 16, 2007....
    SW, it's fruitless to try to hold a discussion based on facts with people who think that Bill O'Reilly is the model for how to discuss issues.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    Silverwhisper....

    Didn't you read what i wrote above??  ONE MORE TIME... THE AMOUNT OF VOTES BUSH GOT ISN'T THE POINT.  HE GOT REELECTED WHILE WE WERE 18 MONTHS INTO THE IRAQ WAR.   

    WHAT DON'T YOU COMPREHEND????  

    Did you see my proof of the latest approval ratings for Congress.   You see, I provide the facts, and I have backup.   You ignore it, because you, like the rest of your party can't handle the facts.  

    We provide news the fair, balanced and unafraid way!!   Live with it.  
  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    Bill O'Rielly tells it like it is, just as i do.   
  • silverwhisper said on May 16, 2007....
    donnie, you wrote several comments defending the validity of the number of votes matter. it isn't us that can't read: it's you. and you can stop singing the foxnews jingle. it doesn't fly from them, it doesn't fly from you.

    as to your other supposed points: bush was re-elected on the basis of the FUD (that's fear, uncertainty & doubt) drummed up by the social conservative "gay marriage is the apocalypse!" far more than he was due to his handling of iraq. and as bloc previously observed, congress rarely has good approval ratings, so i see no reason why you continue gnawing away at that point as if it means something.

    ed
  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    Donnie, you wrote several comments defending the validity of the number of votes matter. it isn't us that can't read: it's you. and you can stop singing the foxnews jingle. it doesn't fly from them, it doesn't fly from you.

    You mean, it doesn't fly with liberals that Bush still got all those votes when we were 18 months into the Iraq war.

    Congress rarely has good approval ratings, so i see no reason why you continue gnawing away at that point as if it means something.

    Prove to me that Congress rarely has good approval ratings ALL THE TIME.   Prove it, just as i proved to you that their ratings are as low now.  

    If this country opposes the war so much as you liberals say, then why is the Democratic Congress getting a 35% approval rating?  They are the ones that want to cut and run from Iraq, yet they get a low score.  Why?  

    It proves that the majority of the people in this country want the troops to stay there and win the war.   The problem they have is with bush, that he has mishandled the war, like I've been saying.  

    And again, the fact is Bush got reelected for the safety of this country.


  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    Oh by the way...

    The fact i provided regarding the low ratings for Congress was provided by the Associated Press, not Fox News.  

    I know you all have problems reading and comprehending what I write.  
  • silverwhisper said on May 16, 2007....
    o gee, the low approval ratings of congress couldn't possibly be because everyone hates congress? no, that couldn't possibly be it, now could it?

    and of course, there's always this little roundup of approval polls that go back to before the mid-term elections...

    ed
  • bloc said on May 16, 2007....
    clearly the war was a mistake because democrats won overwhelmingly in the last election.

    See, I can play foolish games if you that's what you want ;)
  • lioneljay said on May 16, 2007....
    I heard that the war was a mistake because hemlines are going down again.
  • bloc said on May 16, 2007....
    I heard that the war was a mistake because God told us when he started all these wild fires and sent the storms. 
  • lioneljay said on May 16, 2007....
    I heard that the best evidence that the war was a mistake was the fact that an AFC team won the Super Bowl this year.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 16, 2007....
    You all ask me to provide proof that Congress has a 35% approval rating. 

    I did. 

    In return, i get from you,  They always get low approval ratings.  I said, show me the proof that they do all the time. Then I get this:  and of course, there's always this little roundup of approval polls that go back to before the mid-term elections... Now I'm told they go back and forth.  The problem here is that the approval rating has been low ever since the Democrats took control of Congress.  

    While everyone voted for the war, today you say the war was a mistake.   That's funny, because like I said before, if the majority of the people are so against the war then why is today's Congress getting a 35% approval rating?   Aren't they the ones that want our troops to pull out of Iraq?   Still no answer.   

    The fact is the people of this country want us to win the war then leave.  The low approval ratings for Congress is proof of that.  The low approval ratings for Bush is because he continues to mishandle the war.   Fact.  

    Oh, and one more thing before I call it a day.   Gas prices have risen 43% since the Democrats have taken control of Congress.   Oh, I didn't make this one up either because we here at DNN provide the news, fair, balanced and the unafraid way.

    Until next time... Good day.   


  • silverwhisper said on May 16, 2007....
    that was not the request, donnie. as i sad, your reading skills are subpar.

    ed
  • bloc said on May 16, 2007....
    "That's funny, because like I said before, if the majority of the people are so against the war then why is today's Congress getting a 35% approval rating?"

    because there are many other factors. The burden of proof would be on you to prove that the low approval rating is because of their war stance.

    Here is proof that people are against the war and that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

    " By late June, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed 59% of Americans against the war, up 3% from just weeks before." source

    btw, this is terrible logic on your part.

    congress has a low approval rating, therefore the american people support the war in iraq.  This is terrible logic.
  • Donnie1960 said on May 17, 2007....
    Ok.  You insult me again, Silverwhisper. 

    Just keep saying what you are saying because you simply make no sense to me.

    I am that way to you after I prove my facts.  

    You have a nice day.  
  • Donnie1960 said on May 17, 2007....
    because there are many other factors. The burden of proof would be on you to prove that the low approval rating is because of their war stance.

    There are 2 major issues that will effect the 2008 election.  They are, 1) The war in Iraq, 2) Illegal Immigration.   Fact.   Congress gets a low approval rating while they want to pull out of Iraq.   Earth to bloc:  The Iraq war is the top of the agenda. 

     The people of this country want a solution to get out, but not before winning the war.  In other words, nobody has a solution or plan to win the war.  This is why the approval ratings are low for both Bush and Congress. 

    Here is proof that people are against the war and that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

    " By late June, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed 59% of Americans against the war, up 3% from just weeks before." source

    Did you completely read what you sent me?  Did you read it all?   In 2003 when they captured Saddam 62% were for the war.   Now that things aren't going well they are all against it.  

    Ok.  So 6 out of 10 people oppose the war.   But, I believe most of the people in this ENTIRE country want to win the war, before leaving.    And just to inform you, CNN is a very liberal media outlet.  I could just imagine where they got those polls from.  

    Remember my polls came from the Associated Press. 

    But, I do give you credit for backing up what you said, unlike most.  

    How can people say they oppose terrorism when we haven't been attacked ever since?   I don't understand this logic by CNN.  This is what's terrible.  

    congress has a low approval rating, therefore the american people support the war in iraq.  This is terrible logic.

    Well, with Iraq being the top issue in the upcoming election, what would you think are on the minds of the American people?  Can you just imagine what would happen if our troops pulled out of there?  

    Bottom line:  Regardless of those polls, I believe when EVERYONE votes, they will choose to defeat the enemy first, before running away, or else... 



  • lioneljay said on May 17, 2007....
    On Congress: Donnie, you're missing the point of Silver's earlier poll post and that is that Congress traditionally has low approval ratings. His post showed, in fact, that right now the approval rating is actually a little higher than it has been at some points during the last several years.

    On the shift in popularity of the "war" : my take on the poll data is that when Saddam was put out of power most Americans felt that we had accomplished our mission; now that it's four years later and the administration has offered several additional interpretations of our mission, folks here are getting impatient. It seems that at least part of the problem, as evidenced by the shift in poll numbers, is that Americans were in favor of the clear mission and not at all in favor of a vague one.

    On the last point regarding logic: your answer suggests that you do not accept the validity of the poll simply because it was taken from a sample of people and not from the entire population. Such polls do have a margin of error, but their validity and predictability is well supported by research and statistical analysis.


  • silverwhisper said on May 17, 2007....
    o, let donnie blunder about with his supposed "facts", LJ.

    ed
  • lioneljay said on May 17, 2007....
    Sorry, SW, but I'm feeling uncommonly generous today. ;)
  • Donnie1960 said on May 17, 2007....
    On Congress: Donnie, you're missing the point of Silver's earlier poll post and that is that Congress traditionally has low approval ratings. His post showed, in fact, that right now the approval rating is actually a little higher than it has been at some points during the last several years.

    And where is Silver's proof that their ratings are always low.  Were they as low under our former great president Clinton and before that?  

    On the shift in popularity of the "war" : my take on the poll data is that when Saddam was put out of power most Americans felt that we had accomplished our mission; now that it's four years later and the administration has offered several additional interpretations of our mission, folks here are getting impatient. It seems that at least part of the problem, as evidenced by the shift in poll numbers, is that Americans were in favor of the clear mission and not at all in favor of a vague one.

    It is right for the people to be impatient now.  They are only being normal.  But, people have to realize what will happen if we pull out of Iraq now.  Do they?  I believe the majority of them do deep down inside.   When a learder is removed from a country there will always be a fall-out effect after it.  In this case it resulted in a very difficult war.  

    On the last point regarding logic: your answer suggests that you do not accept the validity of the poll simply because it was taken from a sample of people and not from the entire population. Such polls do have a margin of error, but their validity and predictability is well supported by research and statistical analysis.

    There have been reports of certain newspapers losing business and even a lot of media outlets being bias on what they report.  CNN is considered one of them, though I do respect the fact of their poll results.   All I'm saying is that we will have to see when everyone is included.  Polls have meant to be wrong in the past.  It doesn't change my mind that the majority of the people want us to win the war first, before we cut and run from the enemy.    To me, this is the right thing to do.  To sit and not come up with a solution is the wrong thing to do.  I believe this is where the country is now.  









  • bloc said on Oct 05, 2007....
    i recently saw a poll that showed republicans in congress have a lower approval rating than democrats in congress. How does that affect Donnie's logic?
  • silverwhisper said on Oct 09, 2007....
    hasn't donnie ably demonstrated that he's utterly impervious to such things as logic? :D

    ed

Comment on "The war debate - A Hostage Situation"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Obama Administration Sinks To New Low

stopmediabias posted 4 days ago | views: 73 | Tags: politics, President Obama, Kalid Sheik Mohammed
Weak on foreign policy, sold out to the nutty left on domestic policy, now lets fuck with national security and have trials for terrorists in federal courts.... read entire post 9 comments

How Would You Answer The Obama A-Bomb Question?

stopmediabias posted 3 days ago | views: 47 | Tags: politics, atomic bomb, President Obama, Japan
He didn't even try to answer it. What would be your answer? Were we right in dropping the bombs on Japan?... read entire post 8 comments

Obama takes a big shit - Hailed a success!

javadewd posted 2 days ago | views: 48 | Tags: politics, Obama, slavery, taxes, bloviations
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses.... read entire post 6 comments

9 Month Stimulus Update

stopmediabias posted 4 days ago | views: 49 | Tags: politics, stimulus, economy
How's Obama doing with the economy and his stimulus....... read entire post 5 comments

Is McCain The Best Republicans Can Do

ALIENated posted 3 days ago | views: 61 | Tags: Obama numbskulls, ALIENation, Obama, milf, redhead, hockey mom, firecracker

Sarah Palin would be a disaster for the Republicans,
in my humble opinion.

... read entire post 10 comments