home

Bad Day For Congress To Capitulate To Bush: 76% of Americans Say Iraq War Going Badly

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:39:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

From CBS News:

As President Bush and Congress hammer out an Iraq war funding bill, a CBS News/New York Times poll shows the number of Americans who say the war is going badly has reached a new high, rising 10 percent this month to 76 percent.

And another pony for Holden:

BUSH’S JOB APPROVAL RATING
Approve 30%
Disapprove 63%

But Congress is headed in that direction:

APPROVAL OF CONGRESS
Approve 36%
Disapprove 52%

I wonder why? Could it be . . . rubberstamping the Iraq Debacle?

< Open Thread | Why Dems Should Vote No On Iraq Supplemental >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bad Day For Congress To Capitulate To Bush: 76% of Americans Say Iraq War Going Badly | 64 comments (64 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "Hey, but we got minimum wage raised!" (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by fairleft on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:45:57 PM EST
    Says Congressman Fig Leaf.

    I just asked at Orange if Armando could (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    come back now.  Bumblebums cha chinged me a second later.  I'm leaving the internet for the rest of the day, on days like today I feel like I have nothing left to lose but I might ;)  CIAO you crazies.

    Your voice has been heard. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    See link in current FP piece.  

    Parent
    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Claw on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    Jim, I don't post here too often though I check the site as often as I can.  It saddens me that you seem to be listing closer and closer to the deep end.  How can you make the claim that the American people only think the war is going poorly because that's what they're being told?  You're basically calling 76% of Americans stupid.  I think they think the war is going badly because our soldiers continue to die years after the war was supposed to be over.  How do you explain attacks on the green zone?  Just another sign that victory is just around the corner?  How about the generals (and other military personnel) who have come out against the war?  Your position is ludicrous.  If you want to debate a pull out, that's fine.  But you HAVE to admit that the war is going badly...whether you think we should fight it for another 15 years or not.

    For Jim (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    It is advertising. Repeat enough that the war is going well and then it will help the troops to win.

    Any criticism or mention that the war is going badly and the troops will be harmed. Supporting the troops for jim means  putting on a happy face. No pictures, no funerals, just good news or no news.

    It is a closed system that is removed from reality. He learned it from Bush.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    It's the Clap Louder effect ... unfortunately it's canceled by the Emperor Has No Clothes effect.

    Unfortunately, some have progressed to the Lie To Me Pinocchio syndrome.

    Morgue Data Show Increase In Sectarian Killings in Iraq
    More than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again.

    From the beginning of May until Tuesday, 321 unidentified corpses, many dumped and showing signs of torture and execution, have been found across the Iraqi capital, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The data showed that the same number of bodies were found in all of January, the month before the launch of the Baghdad security plan.
    and
    Opium: Iraq's deadly new export
    Amid the anarchy, farmers begin to grow opium poppies, raising fears that the country could become a major heroin supplier
    Farmers in southern Iraq have started to grow opium poppies in their fields for the first time, sparking fears that Iraq might become a serious drugs producer along the lines of Afghanistan.
    [...]
    The shift to opium cultivation is still in its early stages but there is little the Iraqi government can do about it because rival Shia militias and their surrogates in the security forces control Diwaniya and its neighbourhood. There have been bloody clashes between militiamen, police, Iraqi army and US forces in the city over the past two months.
    and
    With eight days still to go, May 2007 caps the deadliest six-month period for America of the entire Iraq war


    Links here

    Parent
    Claw (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:12:00 PM EST
    Nonsense.

    I am saying that, assuming the polls are true, that the American people are believeing what they are being repeaedly told.

    That has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with people being repeatedly the same thing. Advertising and repetition works.

    You should also note that I said the situation was complex. Some places doing poorly... others well. That is factual.

    But that defies a 30 second sound bite and is not as "exciting" as said "30 second sound bite."

    BTW - I would note that, as I pointed out to MB, the Left has claimed that Bush lied repeatedly until people believed him.

    If it worked one way, it works the other.

    Parent

    that's the opposite of factual (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:57:43 AM EST
    You should also note that I said the situation was complex. Some places doing poorly... others well. That is factual.
    that's wrong. everything is worse now. Human rights, civilian deaths, American deaths, ifrastructure, healthcare ... no wonder a despicable bully that gets off on tirades against military spouses couldn't provide a link to his fanatasies.

    Parent
    show us the links ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Sailor on Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:40:55 PM EST
    ... to any place in iraq that is doing good.

    Parent
    lieberman (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by rageahol on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:02:50 PM EST
    jeralyn:
    i didnt connect the dots until i read the rude pundit today, but i recall hearing more of lieberman's "i hope i dont have to switch parties" rhetoric in the last couple weeks. given reid's strange reversal on reid-feingold, i think this is at least plausible, that lieberman basically has the dem nuts in a vise - if he crosses over, committee leadership changes, etc.

    assuming this to be true, hypothetically, do you think it would still be prudent to take the principled position, or to try and hold on to power long enough to solidify a majority that is not subject to the whims of a single individual's threats? i think i know your answer...

    reasons for war (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by diogenes on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:24:53 PM EST
    Doesn't the new foreign minister of France, a socialist and past NATO governor of Bosnia, support the overthrow of Saddam on humanitarian and antitotalitarian grounds?  
    Shouldn't a president decide foreign policy on its merits, not on the polls?  After all, a large majority based on polls did not want us to be involved in World War Two until Pearl Harbor.    

    BTD (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    They are saying that because that is what they are being told.

    We are not talking about you here Jim (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    This was a poll conducted by CBS of the American People.

    They have watched for 4 years. They were TOLD that we were in grqave danger from Iraq in 2003 and they beloieved THAT.

    this is them believe their own lying eyes rather than The Decider.

    Parent

    yes, it's a shame ... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    ... the truth has a liberal bias. [h/t to Colbert]

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    Then you are telling me that advertising doesn't work..

    "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.."

    Sure it did.

    The truth is more complex. It appears to be going well in some places and on some issues, poorly to bad in others.

    But that challenges the MSM people to provide context, and explain the complex relationships. Plus, it does not serve their bias, and would go against the generally accepted legends beloved by the Left that America is bad, so America MUST lose.

    Parent

    So That's It (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:12:29 PM EST
    Then you are telling me that advertising doesn't work..

    Thanks for explaining why you are shilling for the GOP.

    You are advertising, or lying just like Phillip Morris.

    Parent

    What? How does this post (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    connect to the one it is replying to?

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    If you are referring to my comment, and if you understand the principle of nesting...

    My comment was about the poll results in BTD's post.

    His comment was to mine.

    Mine was to his.

    Summary.

    BTD claims that the polls reflect something.

    My comment noted that thet do because the public has been told that for four years.

    His comment claims mine to be wrong because the public has "watched" for four years, and believe what they believe because they believed something four years ago... Now that doesn't make a lot of sense, because if they believed something four years ago because they were told it, it is obvious that the same principle applies. They will believe what they are repeatedly told by the MSM.

    My proof was noting that advertising works.  

    And that the issue is more complex than what the Left wants to let on.

    There now. Sorry all of that was too fast for you.

    Parent

    Winston tasted like Winston (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    and after trying it, folks kept buying it.

    After four years of tasting the cow dung cigarettes BushCo offered, folks wised up.

    If Winston offered cow dung cigarettes, they's be out of business.

    And "they'll follow us here" ain't nicotine anymore.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    Nice dodge.

    My point remains that advertising works.

    Parent

    it's not advertising, it's news ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:43:41 PM EST
    ... you know, as in actual events and facts.
    Not some stupid salesman's huckstering.

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:55:56 AM EST
    Continual simplistic statements that serve only one point of view is advertising...as well as the Demos' handmaidens in the MSM.

    Parent
    wrong (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:40:19 PM EST
    It appears to be going well in some places and on some issues, poorly to bad in others.
    Summation here.

    Parent
    Exactly (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    I wonder why? Could it be . . . rubberstamping the Iraq Debacle?

    And that applies more on the Repub side of the aisle than it does ours.


    Parent
    How, cuz you say so? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    I would say that actions have always spoken louder than words and who runs the House right now and who is allowing this bill?  Pfffft!

    Parent
    No (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    Cuz it's the truth!

    I would say that actions have always spoken louder than words and who runs the House right now and who is allowing this bill?

    I'm not surprised. You would rather bash Dems than the enablers who have and continue to rubberstamp Bush at every opportunity.

    You would rather Bash the Dems who have made several attempts to reign Bush in instead of bashing the repubs who have never made an attempt.

    You bash Dems and give the repubs a pass.

    Anytime you want to leave the party let me know - I'll help you pack.

    Parent

    The idiom is equstrian, not Monarchical (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    You would rather Bash the Dems who have made several attempts to reign Bush in instead of bashing the repubs who have never made an attempt.

    Nolo, if your are out there, I did my homework.

    Parent

    Excellent work (none / 0) (#28)
    by nolo on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    An A+ for you!!!

    Parent
    equestrian (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    that was a typing mistake, not spelling. ;)

    Parent
    True enough (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    Do you urge a NO vote on the Iraq Supplemental?

    Did you write a diary at daily kos to that effect?

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#25)
    by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:54:52 PM EST
    Do you urge a NO vote on the Iraq Supplemental?

    Yes of course.

    Did you write a diary at daily kos to that effect?

    No I don't write diaries. But I did comment several times that I supported a no vote and that I believed that we should work in a positive way to replace the Dems that needed replacing long before this vote came to pass. And to do it without destroying the party in the process.

    I also wrote this in John Kerry's diary he just posted today:

    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/5/24/114745/908/519#c519

    Parent

    The generals agree, jimakaPPJ. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Pneumatikon on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    How sad you are.

    Parent
    Maybe "they" have eyes and ears (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    and the ability to make judgments themselves rather than relying on the liars occupaying the oval office who told them:
    1.  Iraq has WMD's that could strike us at any time, or
    2.  that the war could last 6 days, 6 weeks, "I doubt 6 months"; or 3. "We know where they (WMD) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"; or
    3. "We will be greeted as liberators"

    Question for you Jim, how many times are you going to fall for this Administration's BS? When will the scales fall from your eyes?



    Parent

    Better Yet (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:08:32 PM EST
    Question for you Jim, how many times are you going to fall for this Administration's BS?

    How many times are you going to repeat this Administration's BS?

    Most of which has long since been shown as false.

    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    What does any of your comment have to do the realty that exists today?

    Do you understand what a withdrawal at a fixed time, and by necessity a known and fixed geohraphical location will do to aid the terrorists?

    Do you understand that this will put our troops at great risks? That they will be attacked, and since they won't be mobile, they will be very much in a "killing field."

    Parent

    I think you are right (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    The troops are in a known and fixed geographical location called Iraq and the terrorists could attack them there at any time but they don't have to because the locals have been so abused by our troops in the past that they are attacking our troops for the terrorists, and the soldiers are without a doubt being killed in their known and geographical fixed location.  I guess you do know a lot about military stuff Jim.

    Parent
    The other day (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:43:27 PM EST
    he compared the US situation in Iraq with the Germans at Stalingrad. He thought that was an argument in favor of staying in Iraq. Jim knows all sorts of stuff.

    Parent
    WT (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:50:11 PM EST
    You know, you try and be nice and it just doesn't work very often.

    My comment was that the Germans became confined in a geographical area, and got cut to pieces.

    My argument is that if we try to withdraw while under attack we will be confined to a well defined  geographical area, at a defined time, then we lose our mobility advantage and face fighting a set piece battle. That is not in our advantage. And will result in many dead and wounded.

    Whether we should do so, or whether we should do what is necessary to avoid that situation is a completely separate issue.

    You do not.

    I do.

    Have a nice day. And try not to misstate my position.

    Parent

    Oh, so that's what you mean today huh? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:01:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:38:20 PM EST
    That's what I mean today, tomorrow and yesterday.

    That you are incapable of understanding it is your problem, and a problem it it is for you.

    But it does clearly show that your cries of support are hypocritical, and that you clearly do not understand the cost you are asking those you claim to so dearly love to bear.

    If you want to end the war, say so. But please have the courtesy to say thank you to those you want to suffer to give you what you what your ego so desperately needs.

    Parent

    despicable bully (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Sailor on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:54:28 AM EST


    Parent
    You can't bully the unbullyable (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:49:29 PM EST
    I have a three inch very light scar over my left eye from  twelve yrs old and the neighborhood bully.  I went to the doctor for stitches and I don't want to know where he went because all I could hear was his dad hollering from his house as we left the hood.  My doctor looked at me and told me I shouldn't fight with boys and I told him that I know that.  Then he busted out laughing because he was only kidding about what he thought my injury was from.  My dad was so proud he took me to breakfast the next morning with all of his construction buddies and they all whistled under their breath moving my bangs over to see my stitches.  Men raise terrible women ;).

    Parent
    Tracy - Sailor (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:10:37 AM EST
    Hmmmm.

    Tracy, once upon a time you made a comment that you  were going to spank me. I guess you thought I would blush and go away. I am sure you remember that I did not.

    In this instance I have pointed out some facts to you, and sailor decides I am a "bully." Now heaven knows why he would do so, given his proven track record of calling people names, but keeping up with Sailor's logic is not something I do. And then you opine with something about fighting with boys.

    What any of that has to do with my comments based on your position I really don't know.

    Now, if you, or Sailor want to debate my point, please do so.

    But complaining that I have made a few points isn't going to win the debate, or hush me up.


    Parent

    DA - Let me be brief (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    Tell someone who cares what you think.

    TaTa!!!

    and yadda yadda

    Parent

    BTW DA (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    BTW - I note neither you or sailor had anything to say on my positon re withdrawal.

    Typical. You can't refute, so you make personal attacks.

    Parent

    Even for you, jim (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:31:28 PM EST
    That is a foul and disgusting comment.

    You stoop... but that is beneath even you.

    IMO you owe Tracy an apology.

    Parent

    Tracy (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    You again demonstrate that you are not "military" with such a comment as "the troops are in a known...."

    The issue is that NOW they are very mobile and can call in various types of support available a short time away, and that support can remain on station easily, and if shot down can be picked up/rescued.

    This would not be the case during a withdrawal. Think of the the Baghdad airport area and say, an additional 1000 acres as comared to "Iraq."

    Parent

    Wow, so the troops aren't in Iraq? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:03:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:12:52 AM EST
    That won't work. My comment clearly said that the withdrawal would be from a defined area and that we would lose our mobility.

    You comeback claiming "Iraq" is "defined."

    Pardon my grin.

    Parent

    Quick! Look over there! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    It doesn't work Jim. Your comment was that people believe the war is going badly because the media has told them it was going badly- insinuating that the war isn't going badly. I responded by pointing out that its possible that no-one trusts the liars in the Oval Office and rightfully so. I asked you a question, which you have avoided by metaphorically yelling "look over there".

    I'll repeat the questions for you:

    how many times are you going to fall for this Administration's BS? When will the scales fall from your eyes?

    We are all waiting on your answer.



    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    It is possible that no one believes Molly. Some do, and some do not.

    My comment was that people believe what they are told, especially repeatedly. That, I beleive is the claim of the Left. "Bush lied repeatedly and people believed."

    If that is true, then it is just as possible that the MSM has lied and people have believed.

    If both are incorrect then you deny that advertising works,

    My overall comment is that we are were we are, and that a defined withdrawal will be a debacle costing many US lives.

    The Demos have figured that out and are looking for a way out. Just wait until the trial ballons start floating up from Reid to Iran... You let us retreat with "diginity" and you can have your nuke.

    Kissinger could do no better (worse).

    Parent

    Not responsive (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:08:44 PM EST


    Parent
    MB (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:48:00 AM EST
    Asking rhetorical questions is a specialty of yours.

    If you don't want to debate, just take your snarky shot and sneak away.

    But I will continue to remind you that all of the comments about what was not found without coupling that to the documented efforts of Saddam trying to get back into the WMD business comes across as Demo partisan attacks.

    Worse, ignoring where we are now and demanding withdrawals that may well kill hundreds or even thousands of our troops is not exactly what everyone thinks the Demos/Left has meant as they screamed "we support the troops."

    So keep on snarking. I'll be here to lay the truth on you.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Questions, questions (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Repack Rider on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:04:07 AM EST
    and demanding withdrawals that may well kill hundreds or even thousands of our troops

    Perhaps someone should have thought about this before sending them in.  Citing a an authority on the subject: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -- Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

    What WAS the original exit strategy?  Anyone know?  

    Do you have any idea why Mr. Bush changed his mind on the president's responsibility to explain the exit strategy?  Would that be a flipflop of astronomical propotions?

    Parent

    there wasn't an exit strategy ... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Sailor on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:00:49 AM EST
    ... but there sure were a lot of warning that exactly what has happened would happen: Report: U.S. Intel Warned Of Iraq Instability

    Parent
    You want to change the subject? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    Ok fine. We will assume you still have faith in Bush's worthless statements and promises. You prefer the scales on your eyes. I would remind you that insanity is often defined as repeating the same behavior over and over and expecting a different result.

    On to the new subejct then.

    Yes Saddam wanted WMD. Point conceded.  I want a million dollars. As the old saying goes, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

    The point is there is a clear difference between wanting to have something and actually having it.

    The evidence that Saddam had WMD and the capability of imminent use  was reviewed by experts at the time and their conculsion was Saddam didn't have it.

    Not liking that response, because it did not suit their apriori beliefs, the Bushies set up the OSP to review the evidence and surprise surprise they found their pretext.... er... evidence.

    Unfortuately the real experts turned out to be right, the faux experts at the OSP turned out to be wrong.

    I think the Bushies knew and didn't care. That makes them liars (keep in mind the claim was they exactly where the WMD was- that turned out to be a LIE). But for your sake, lets assume they were just blinded by their apriori beliefs. That calls into question their judgment. Given this track record, when they tell us (and you parrot their claims) all of the bad things that will happen if we withdraw are worse than the bad things that will happen if we stay, why should we trust thier (and your) judgment. The track record is rotten.

    The bottom line is the same: either they lied and we should not trust them, or their judgment was "not worth a bucket of warm spit"  and we should not trust them.

    This is not fertile ground for you Jim. I reccomend you consider the definition of insanity and ask yourself, "why do I repeatedly touch a hot stove and expect a result other than being burned?"



    Parent

    MB - You write (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:45:35 AM EST
    The evidence that Saddam had WMD and the capability of imminent use  was reviewed by experts at the time and their conculsion was Saddam didn't have it.

    The issue was not "imminent" use. Bush noted in his 2003 SOTU.

    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

    You see, that is the issue that the Left will not admit, because it states the basic reason the Senate, including your Demos, authorized the war.

    We could not afford to take the chance.

    And contrary to your misstatement of the facts, every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD's.

    Now you claim some thought said he did not.

    Can you provide me a link?

    Parent

    a total freakin' lie (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Sailor on Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    And contrary to your misstatement of the facts, every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD's.
    That's just a lie.

    And bushco repeatedly said the threat was imminent. So that's another lie.

    Parent

    Can you read??? (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:30:50 PM EST
    Uh, I quoted the speech.

    Parent
    so what? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Sailor on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:36:37 PM EST
    MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.

    "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

    No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

    Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

    MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.

    QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

    MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

    Now go peddle your obvious lies somewhere else.

    Parent

    Ask and ye shall receive (none / 0) (#58)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat May 26, 2007 at 04:51:29 PM EST
    Don't play semantic games. Bush:
    We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger.

    The use of  grave and gathering danger was to imply that Saddam was about to have WMD capability.

    My claim was "WMD and the capability of imminent use".   Don't demand I document my claim  without documenting your own that every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD's. And try to use a legitimate source (rules out Faux news or David Brooks).

    While you try to pull that rabbit out of your hat consider these two points:

    Where did  Powell get this idea if your statement (every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD's.) is correct

    We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.

    Or the reporting in State of Denial wherein Woodward states Rumsfeld said no believes Saddam has nuclear weapons at the same time Bush was publically stating that we

    we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud

    Explain the Weapons inspectors reports after they went back in before the war- no WMD.



    Parent

    MB - So???? (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    The use of  grave and gathering danger was to imply that Saddam was about to have WMD capability.

    Really? Are you now channeling Bush?

    BTW - Bush's claim was that we could not wait until the danger was imminent.

    That's what the preemptive strike strategy is all about.

    There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes," argued the 63-year-old former diplomat and sleuth.

    Link

    I don't know what would be worse. A state driven WMD program, or a rogue one.

    Either way, we put a stop to it.

    BTW - OK, that's 99.9% of the world's intellogence agencies.

    And you still haven't responded to my comment re the number of US dead and wounded that will happen if we withdraw under fire.

    And if we don't have effective control of the country, we will be under fire.

    Have a nice night.

    Parent

    You still haven't explained Powell's statement (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:53:26 PM EST
    Here is another one for you to chew on. The Bushies set up the OSP because they didn't like the intel they were getting from the CIA on Iraq and WMD.

    If every intelligence agency in the world, as you say, believed Saddam had WMD,  why did the Bushies feel the need to set up the OSP?

    Now couple the Powell's statement about NO WMD (which intel services do you think he was relying on when he made that statement?) and the percieved need for the OSP and what is the elephant in the room?

    Come on Jim, you can do it, put two and two together and see if you can get the sum of four! (BTW, I can throw more out there for you to think about and try to explain away)  



    Parent

    You'd better have (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Edger on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:51:56 PM EST
    a real heart to heart with Bush-Wack there, sparky. He says(heh) that he's planning on withdrawing up to 50% of them next year. By your own reasoning(sic) he'll be responsible for the casualties and deaths of the troops you claim to support... or was it only the CinC you said you support? Looks like decision time for you. You can't have it both ways.

    Some CinC. Maybe he can bring you in as a tactical advisor? Your advice would be what? Leave them there so they are safer?

    Parent

    Bad Day For Congress To Capitulate To Bush: 76% of Americans Say Iraq War Going Badly | 64 comments (64 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment