Iraq War Attitudes

...voters’ attitudes toward the Iraq War...

57% believe “The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”

57% “support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.

50% want our troops should stay and “do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country” while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal

56% believe “Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”

53% believe “The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.”

So what does the above mean?

Means all you bleeding-heart libs are in the Minority!

A right-wing blog?

Well that must be the truth then!

Sorry Boon, but if you are going to continue to paste other people's ideas into here instead of your own thinking and add in a "bleeding heart liberal" tagline, you need to dig up some more credible sources.

There's probably a 14yr olds myspace page claiming that massive deficit spending is a good thing. Better go pasting that around as if it were fact too.

Don't forget to add a "bleeding heart" comment and at least one " " so we know it's you.

Iraq War Attitudes

...voters’ attitudes toward the Iraq War...

57% believe “The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”

57% “support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.

50% want our troops should stay and “do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country” while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal

56% believe “Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”

53% believe “The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.”

So what does the above mean?

Means all you bleeding-heart libs are in the Minority!

What a load of poop boonie.How can you credible quote stats etc,when the it is purposly misleading.

eg:

Which one of the following statements regarding the US involvement in Iraq do you MOST

agree with...

17% The US should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq.

32% Whether Iraq is stable or not, the US should set and hold to set a strict timetable for

withdrawing troops

23% While I don’t agree that the US should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do

whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their

country.

27% The Iraq War is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay

there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide

security to their country.

1% DON’T KNOW

1% REFUSED

.or how about this one

6. Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in

Iraq because we are at war.

AGREE DISAG

56% 43%

So even if the majority of seppos disapprove of the War,but they would still back the Pres.Unreal.

A right-wing blog?

Well that must be the truth then!

Sorry Boon, but if you are going to continue to paste other people's ideas into here instead of your own thinking and add in a "bleeding heart liberal" tagline, you need to dig up some more credible sources.

There's probably a 14yr olds myspace page claiming that massive deficit spending is a good thing. Better go pasting that around as if it were fact too.

Don't forget to add a "bleeding heart" comment and at least one " " so we know it's you.

Dispute the numbers quoted by Public Opinion Strategies, eh? Not someone else's 'ideas' but an opinion poll which runs counter to your blee...whoops! Ya'll already know now where your sympathies lie so let's change it up and use the adjective 'appeasiers' for now!

Unfortuanly you always have 'lies, dam_n lies and statistics'.

Putting a slant on an survey to get the results you want isn't hard. It's done all the time.

Edit: Seriously, when is it time to drop the sad censorship of a few 'naughty' words? Is everyone five around here and get upset if they read the words hel_l, dam_n, rap_e and so on? Kinda made the news-post about the rap_e-case look wierd for visitors no doubt...

Back on topic:

Let's say even if, hypothetically, every single justification for the war would be eventually proven not to have any basis ( and this is already demonstrably impossible); it would still not validate the absurd claims on the part of the cut & run left who, in characteristic paranoid fashion, have come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories and paranoid fantasies that connect dots in a much more irrational and delusional manner than what they accuse the Bush administration of doing. It ain't over yet...

Famous examples of "Cut 'n Run"

Somalia 1995: Clinton (Democrat)

Iraq 1991: Bush (Republican)

Beruit 1983: Reagan (Republican)

Vietnam 1973: Nixon (Republican)

Seems the left has no monopoly on cutting and running. In fact, they have a historical precedent set for them by the likes of Reagan and Bush Sr, who ran away leaving the Shia's to saddam after encouraging them to rise up against him. Don't think they've forgotten.

Those who think the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11 deserve the term moonbats. So do those who think Iraq is in any way connected.

Those who think the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11 deserve the term moonbats. So do those who think Iraq is in any way connected.

Au contraire there cdnvic...Saddam allowed 'safe havens' and training sites on Iraqi soil (sorry no link but this point was established long ago which the anti-war crowd refuses to recognize) so there is a loose connection between the two.

There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and 9/11, so why did they let him escape to focus on this tenuous link?

There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and 9/11, so why did they let him escape to focus on this tenuous link?

Oil and Dubya's zeal in attempting to make the ME stable.

It's going to be a long war as was stated in the beginning and in this age of instant gratification, that does not wash well with the MTV crowd, eh?

Those who think the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11 deserve the term moonbats. So do those who think Iraq is in any way connected.

Au contraire there cdnvic...Saddam allowed 'safe havens' and training sites on Iraqi soil (sorry no link but this point was established long ago which the anti-war crowd refuses to recognize) so there is a loose connection between the two.

Loose you say.That's very big of you.

There ARE much greater links between Saudi and AQ.......

There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and 9/11, so why did they let him escape to focus on this tenuous link?

I think the question should be ... There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and wtc-ninetythree, so why didn't SlickWill exterminate him when he had a chance?

Then maybe all this becomes a moot point.

And who said he escaped? He was hunted into seclusion, seriously wounded in battle, and is now either taking a dirt nap or otherwise effectively removed from the equation.

There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and 9/11, so why did they let him escape to focus on this tenuous link?

I think the question should be ... There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and wtc-ninetythree, so why didn't SlickWill exterminate him when he had a chance?

Then maybe all this becomes a moot point.

And who said he escaped? He was hunted into seclusion, seriously wounded in battle, and is now either taking a dirt nap or otherwise effectively removed from the equation.

Crumbs Spee,even GWB would not say that binladen has been "effectivly removed from the equation"....

There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and 9/11, so why did they let him escape to focus on this tenuous link?

I think the question should be ... There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and wtc-ninetythree, so why didn't SlickWill exterminate him when he had a chance?

I'm not defending Clinton. I'm asking why Bush didn't capture the man responsible for 9/11 when he hade the chance.

Don't deflect. Either answer the question or at least admit that Bush f*cked up.

There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and 9/11, so why did they let him escape to focus on this tenuous link?

I think the question should be ... There was a rock solid connection between bin laden and wtc-ninetythree, so why didn't SlickWill exterminate him when he had a chance?

I'm not defending Clinton. I'm asking why Bush didn't capture the man responsible for 9/11 when he hade the chance.

Don't deflect. Either answer the question or at least admit that Bush f*cked up.

It's never going to happen cdnvic.All they can do is blame somebody else,without ever answering the question for themselves.

The only way to tackle it is to say,even though Clinton (The scoundrel pinko lefty wackjob etc etc) was 10 x more bad than our god,(GWB.) Do you think that GWB has made any tiny,insignificant miniscule mistakes at all. It's only then that they might just answer directly.

Well, why did a majority of Democratic senators — such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer — vote to authorize a war with Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002? And why is this war now supposedly George Bush’s misfortune and not theirs?"

Again, nobody's defending them here, but once again you've done a cut and run on a direct question.

Why did they let the mastermind of 9/11 get away while they chased a tenuous link in Iraq?

Again, nobody's defending them here, but once again you've done a cut and run on a direct question.

Why did they let the mastermind of 9/11 get away while they chased a tenuous link in Iraq?

I don't think they so much let OBL get away as an intentional act but a battle field cock-up. They did not effectively seal up that border region by Tora Bora.

They had him cornered into a small area but sent in irregular Afghan fighters instead of sending US or any of the other allied forces in to do it properly. There were numerous allied special forces and regular units available who were beyond afghan tribal politics and bribery but they weren't sent in.

How many "reliable" troops were committed? A few dozen US special forces.

Gen. James Mattis had 4000 marines available to go in, but he was told not to deploy them.

The mastermind behind 9/11 escapes and the victims of the attack are denied justice.

Four years later, still nothing except "mission accomplished" in Iraq.

Why did they let the mastermind of 9/11 get away while they chased a tenuous link in Iraq?

Anyone who believes the US went into Iraq to pursue "a tenuous link" to 9-11 is living in some sort of mass media induced fantasy world. The US went in to remove Saddam from power in accordance with a UN WMD resolution that the UN didnt have balls to enforce under (eff Kofi) Annan.

And that's not some right wing neo-con stance. Even the most ultra-left of the liberal Democrat wing stated exactly the same:

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/iraq/p/quotes.htm

What I don't get is why the Dems don't stand behind what they say, by making politically popular statements with no intention to ever practice what they preach.

and still no explanation as to why bin laden got away, just more accusations at the democrats.

Why did they let the mastermind of 9/11 get away while they chased a tenuous link in Iraq?

Anyone who believes the US went into Iraq to pursue "a tenuous link" to 9-11 is living in some sort of mass media induced fantasy world. The US went in to remove Saddam from power in accordance with a UN WMD resolution that the UN didnt have balls to enforce under (eff Kofi) Annan.

And that's not some right wing neo-con stance. Even the most ultra-left of the liberal Democrat wing stated exactly the same:

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/iraq/p/quotes.htm

What I don't get is why the Dems don't stand behind what they say, by making politically popular statements with no intention to ever practice what they preach.

The link between AQ and Iraq, had less credibility than the WMD's.

Why you guys keep blaiming the Dems is beyond me.Can't the rep's stand up on their own two feet.They have made many,many mistakes,but according to the right, it's all the dem's fault.Where exactly does the buck stop?

Careful not to question boon too strongly, he'll just have a mod come in and rescue him again.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...iew=getlastpost

and still no explanation as to why bin laden got away

I don't think he got away. I think he's dead, due in part to his own failing health and very much complicated by injuries from allied weaponry. He's right there with Zarqawi and all the other defeated whack-jobs finding out there are no virgins in hel_l. Next?

and still no explanation as to why bin laden got away

I don't think he got away. I think he's dead, due in part to his own failing health and very much complicated by injuries from allied weaponry. He's right there with Zarqawi and all the other defeated whack-jobs finding out there are no virgins in hel_l. Next?

No corpse no crime as they say in the American legal system.

and still no explanation as to why bin laden got away

I don't think he got away. I think he's dead, due in part to his own failing health and very much complicated by injuries from allied weaponry. He's right there with Zarqawi and all the other defeated whack-jobs finding out there are no virgins in hel_l. Next?

So, your guesses are now reliable evidence?

Well, that clears that up. Now where's Elvis?

and still no explanation as to why bin laden got away

I don't think he got away. I think he's dead, due in part to his own failing health and very much complicated by injuries from allied weaponry. He's right there with Zarqawi and all the other defeated whack-jobs finding out there are no virgins in hel_l. Next?

So, your guesses are now reliable evidence?

Well, that clears that up. Now where's Elvis?

So, your guesses are now reliable evidence?

It is my opinion. Call it whatever you want to.

Look at it simply:

- A religious extremist fanatic who loves being in front of the camera and the microphone, and who does most of his preaching and encouragement via the mass media, has not been seen or heard from in months, if not a year or more.

- Either he is dead or no longer has access to mass media.

- Given that his lieutenants still have access to mass media, one would presume that he would also.

- He has not been seen or heard of, therefore the only possible alternative is that he is dead.

Occam's Razor, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the most likely one. And good riddance if true.

By the way brainiac, where's your conclusive evidence that he's alive?

By the way brainiac, where's your conclusive evidence that he's alive?

Hmmm... name calling. Getting desperate?

Just to be sure, are we still on Elvis, or are we back on bin laden now?

By the way brainiac, where's your conclusive evidence that he's alive?

Hmmm... name calling. Getting desperate?

Just to be sure, are we still on Elvis, or are we back on bin laden now?

Dodging the question ..... again! Pot, kettle, black!