So how many of you here thinks this whole Cindy Sheehan thing will mark a turning point in the war? Convince everyone it really is Vietnam all over again? Return teh L3ft to some vague semblance of power in Washington?

8/19/2005 4:41:37 PM

No one.


so?

8/19/2005 4:48:50 PM

IRAQ IS VIETNAM

oh wait....

BRING BACK THE DRAFT SO THAT IRAQ WILL BE LIKE VIETNAM

/democrat senators

8/19/2005 4:55:04 PM

^yeah
thats what they are doing

dumbass

[Edited on August 19, 2005 at 5:13 PM. Reason : gd]

8/19/2005 4:56:36 PM

most democrats aren't asking for a complete and immediate withdrawl from iraq as this woman is.

i was against going to war and i still believe that it was the wrong decision to go to war. i also know that iraq needs to be stabilized before we leave. i do believe that we need to make it a goal to get out of there as quickly as possible, but we must fix what we broke.

8/19/2005 5:12:04 PM

can you really break a nation like pre-war iraq

8/19/2005 5:24:45 PM

Apparently the answer's yes.

8/19/2005 5:29:09 PM

Well, according to moveon.org, about 50,000 people showed up nationwide.

That's 0.02% of the US population.

That's 1.7% of moveon.org's membership.

Wow. With such a huge turn out, I guess the country really is swinging towards anti-war.

8/19/2005 5:46:47 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/08/bush.poll/

Quote :

"Fifty-six percent of those polled said they thought things were going badly for the United States in Iraq, and 43 percent said things were going well. [...] 57 percent said the war has made the United States less safe from terrorism -- a number that has risen dramatically in just two months when 39 percent said the U.S. homeland was less safe. On the other, 54 percent said they believe it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq; 44 percent said it was not a mistake."

8/19/2005 5:52:34 PM

What I'd like to know is how many Americans believe this war in Iraq is anything other than insanity. Who supports this war anymore? Basically just people who blindly support Bush and are ignorant of the fact that his administration purposefully lied to get us into the war?

Practically everyone knows that the Zionist Neo-cons were planning to go to war against Iraq years before the war started (PNAC, etc.), and they fabricated the WMD threat to create the pretext for the war (Downing Street Memo, etc.).


[Edited on August 19, 2005 at 6:09 PM. Reason : 1]

8/19/2005 6:06:43 PM

^The Pope visited a synagogue today and no commentary?

8/19/2005 6:11:27 PM

^
And Robert Byrd used to be in the Klan, even writing a letter about how he'd rather see the US flag get trampled into the dirt then fight alongside some negros (apparently "Hate America First"-ism is a fairly old disease)

If teh L3ft expects us to forgive him, surely someone forced into joining the Hitler Youth when he was kid can visit a synagogue w/o commentary...

---

Quote :

"boonedocks: No one. so?"

Had seen it in several newspaper columns and in radio/TV commentary from teh L3ft. Just wanted to see if the flaming lefties on TWW were as optimistic.

[Edited on August 19, 2005 at 6:38 PM. Reason : ---]

8/19/2005 6:37:06 PM

Quote :

"The Pope visited a synagogue today and no commentary?"

What kind of commentary should there be? The Pope is a position as well as a person; he represents the entire church, not just himself.

8/19/2005 6:49:24 PM

The Catholic-Zionist conspiracy.

duh.

8/19/2005 10:52:13 PM

Indeed, the war was started on false pretense, and it was idiocy, although I do hesitate to pull out now. I'm hoping Iraq can be stablized, but as a final result we might end up doing for Iran what Iran couldn't do for itself.

[Edited on August 19, 2005 at 11:07 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

8/19/2005 11:06:37 PM

Quote :

"Practically everyone knows that the Zionist Neo-cons "

hahaha, i get a good laugh out of reading salisbury's zionist rants.


By the way, here's a piece from CNN on Chuck Hagel.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/hagel.iraq/index.html

Quote :

"Hagel: Iraq growing more like Vietnam Republican Senator says Bush should meet with protesting mom Thursday, August 18, 2005; Posted: 11:35 p.m. EDT (03:35 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Thursday said the United States is "getting more and more bogged down" in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war. The longer U.S. forces remain in Iraq, he said, the more it begins to resemble the Vietnam war. Hagel mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion in June that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes," saying the U.S. death toll has risen amid insurgent attacks. "Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking," the Nebraskan told CNN. "If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do." On Thursday, Cheney told a veterans group that "Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror, and victory there is critical to the future security of the U.S." "Every man and woman who fights and sacrifices in this war is serving a just and noble cause," Cheney told the 73rd National Convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart in Springfield, Missouri. Hagel, an Army infantry squad leader during the Vietnam war, sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and supported the October 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. But he said the United States risks losing more public support for the conflict amid a rising cost in blood and money. "The casualties we're taking, the billion dollars a week we're putting in there, the kind of commitment we've got -- we're not going to be able to sustain it," he said. Iraq and Vietnam still have more differences than similarities, he said, but "there is a parallel emerging." "The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop, meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States," Hagel said. Hagel also did not back away from comments he made in June to U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" and "the reality is that we're losing in Iraq." "It gives me no great pleasure to have said that and to say that now," he said Thursday. He said the U.S. death toll has continued to rise "at a very significant rate -- more dead, more wounded, less electricity in Iraq, less oil being pumped in Iraq, more insurgent attacks, more insurgents coming across the border, more corruption in the government." A total of 1,861 American troops have died in the war since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, including four who were killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in Samarra. (Full story) Cheney said in June that the insurgency is "in the last throes," and he predicted that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office. (Full story) In the CNN interview Thursday, Hagel mentioned Cheney's comments about the insurgency and quickly added, "The facts speak for themselves." Hagel did say he agrees with President Bush that the United States should not set a timetable for troop withdrawal, but he also predicted the United States would begin "withdrawing troops from Iraq next year." "I don't like time frames because it gives the president no flexibility, and I think you always must have flexibility in these things and a judgment call by the president," he said. Ultimately, he said, it's up to the Iraqis to control their nation's fate. "That means they are either going to have to be in a position sometime next year to really step up in governing themselves, defending themselves, supporting themselves, or we can't continue to stay there indefinitely," Hagel said. The next six months will be "very critical" in Iraq, he said. "Not just the constitution writing, referendum, the election -- but also within that six months' period we're going to see whether the Iraqis are really going to be capable of defending themselves," he said. On another Iraq-related issue, Hagel said Bush made the wrong decision by not meeting again with Cindy Sheehan, a mother of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq who has camped outside the president's Texas ranch. (Full story) Sheehan "deserves some consideration, and I think that should have been done right from the beginning," Hagel said, noting that Bush did meet with her shortly after her son's death last year. "I think the wise course of action, the compassionate course of action, the better course of action would have been to immediately invite her in to the ranch. It should have been done when this whole thing started. Listen to her." "

8/20/2005 12:16:03 AM

I think if anyone thinks Sheehan has an influence on the war is a dumbass regardless of political affiliation.

8/20/2005 2:10:12 AM

lots of dumbasses floating around then. this was one of the good ones:

Quote :

"Larry: Dear Cindy - Drudge, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc can attack you and lie about you all they want. It's to no avail. Your courage has awakened our nation's conscience and the paradigm shift we are seeing against the policies of Bush and his Neo-Cons is only going to grow stronger. You stand in the Truth and there is nothing your atackers can do about that except to lie, lie, lie. Just as Bush himself did to get us into Iraq in violation of all this nation originally stood for. God bless and sustain you for being the "voice in the wilderness" that is now being heard around the world! Many Blessings, Larry Posted by: Larry on August 18, 2005 at 04:45PM"

[Edited on August 20, 2005 at 2:19 AM. Reason : ---]

8/20/2005 2:19:24 AM

ahaha i read that too

talk about being blinded by hatred

8/20/2005 2:24:46 AM

many ^^^^'s up to the poll that's up there...

Does anyone know where you can find the actual questions asked during polls? Whenever I see a poll about anything, I'm always curious as to what the questions are and how they're asked.

8/20/2005 9:22:19 AM

Depends on who's doing it. Sometimes Gallup has the internals publicly available for a short time after the poll is released at http://www.gallup.com/. Most of the rest cost $texas though.

8/20/2005 9:40:12 AM

Chuck Hagel...raging member of teh l3ft.

8/20/2005 11:44:44 AM

^
next you'll be telling me "John McCain...raging member of teh L3ft"

oh, wait...

8/20/2005 10:29:05 PM

Quote :

"57 percent said the war has made the United States less safe from terrorism -- a number that has risen dramatically in just two months when 39 percent said the U.S. homeland was less safe."

god DAMN thats some spin. There is NO WAY to compare "the war has made us less safe" to "are we safe" fairly.

"Do guns make you feel less safe?" Yes
"Do you feel less safe?" no

8/21/2005 12:39:38 AM

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 1:17 AM. Reason : shit i must have dreamed what i thought i read.]

8/21/2005 1:16:31 AM

What this thread made me think of:

8/21/2005 7:05:17 PM

what does this thread have to do with neo-cons? i see that term and automatically think "ann coulter" for some reason.

8/22/2005 1:01:08 AM

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: what does this thread have to do with neo-cons?"

Quote :

"Cindy Sheehan: Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."

8/22/2005 1:17:32 AM

Quote :

"Sheehan "deserves some consideration, and I think that should have been done right from the beginning," Hagel said, noting that Bush did meet with her shortly after her son's death last year. "I think the wise course of action, the compassionate course of action, the better course of action would have been to immediately invite her in to the ranch. It should have been done when this whole thing started. Listen to her." ""

That would have been the best thing to do, if Bush wasn't an idiot. I bet he's too stupid to be able to defend himself, or at least hold his own, in explaining to this woman why the war was necessary. I don't support this war and I could likely rebut any argument she would have against it.

8/22/2005 1:53:59 AM

Quote :

"moron: That would have been the best thing to do, if Bush wasn't an idiot."

And what exactly would the argument be to all the families that haven't even had 1 meeting with him yet, when she'd be getting 2?

8/22/2005 2:11:45 AM

I haven't been following this whole Sheehan stuff (it really is kinda trivial BS), but I heard somewhere that the first meeting wasn't really a meeting. It's like they were both at the same party or something. I don't know... if they did have a real meeting though, what did Bush/Sheehan say to each other?

8/22/2005 2:17:10 AM

^
relevance = -0-

Quote :

"TGD: And what exactly would the argument be to all the families that haven't even had 1 meeting with him yet?"

8/22/2005 9:13:09 AM

If there was a supposed meeting, how is it not relevant if they actually met or not?

8/22/2005 2:45:38 PM

^
I realize your SN is moron, but work with me here: ignore the fact there was even the first meeting. Why should she get 1 when so many others have gotten -0- ?

8/22/2005 5:34:17 PM

Because she has the media attention.

8/22/2005 6:10:36 PM

thats a damn good reason

8/22/2005 6:21:39 PM

8/23/2005 10:08:40 PM

Quote :

""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)"

8/24/2005 11:22:13 AM

^
are we gonna start with this shit again? do I need to start drudging up old Hillary Clinton / Bill Clinton / "Uncle Keg" Kennedy / John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry quotes on Iraq's WMDs?

Give up already...

8/24/2005 11:46:07 AM

^^^ I'd like to know how he came up with the projection for Bush's approval rating.

8/24/2005 11:50:42 AM

I'd say he used the equation in the bottom right corner that was created by analyzing the graph of the current trend.

8/24/2005 11:56:15 AM

I love the "1-year projection" for W

His approval ratings will never slip below 38-40%. You can count on that.

8/24/2005 11:59:34 AM

^^^^

Seeing as how none of those would be even slightly relevant really, no.

8/24/2005 2:42:22 PM

I just don't know if a trust a graph that shows W's approval rating at 5% anytime soon.

8/24/2005 2:47:04 PM

I'm really suspicious as to how the graph speculated so far ahead. I mean, for Christ's sake, it's the first year of Bush's 2nd term. The last 3/8ths of that graph are based on totally incomplete data.

8/24/2005 2:49:16 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: Seeing as how none of those would be even slightly relevant really, no."

Only because you're the one determining the debate.

8/24/2005 4:05:52 PM

I posted the graph in jest. Sort of. Mostly to show that GWB's approval ratings are below where Nixon's was at the height of Watergate. The projection's there because it was the only graph I could find.

buuuuuuuuut,

Quote :

"His approval ratings will never slip below 38-40%. You can count on that."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112481890611420718-_YHqCe_oM7fXMITSkTO2yCR8ZiM_20060824,00.html?mod=blogs

40%

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

36%

8/24/2005 7:45:53 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

8/24/2005 9:42:08 PM

http://www.whatdoessomepoorlydesignedconservativenewsaggregatorhaveanythingtodowiththisthead.com/

oooh, I see the headline.

So what's stopping it from dropping even more?

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2005 9:53:43 PM

To be fair, your graph did show him with a 5% approval rating at the end of his term.

8/24/2005 10:02:32 PM