1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

[doniston]

Jilly, my brain is fine

If had one you would be a Republican

I sometime agree, or disagree with republicans, but you sir are truely a jackass

 

[red states rule]

I sometime agree, or disagree with republicans, but you sir are truely a jackass

Is this the warm and fuzzy side of a liberal i have heard so much about?

 

[doniston]

Is this the warm and fuzzy side of a liberal i have heard so much about?

No, this is the honest side. and it has nothing to do with your physical condition, not does your physical health have anything to do with this issue, Your mental health? well!

 

[Gunny]

S'matter, dimbulb? Don't like knowing that you're part of the 20% or so of this country that doesn't think Bush is incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with anything more complicated than clearing brush in Crawford?

My party has been particularly gonad-less in ending this thing. Goes to how you define "loss" and "win". Bush's f-ups haven't left anything other than bad choices.... incompetence which he has kindly left it to others to clean up.

The problem I have with this statement is ... if y'all were TRULY interested in putting someone competent in office, it wouldn't be any of the people currently on your roster.

This isn't about competence or what's best for this nation at all. It's ALL about partisanship.

 

[red states rule]

Over 70% of this country wants out. Clearly not just democrats... And it would be higher if there was a draft and chickenhawks like you had to go to Iraq.

But you can think whatever you'd like if it makes you feel better about yourself.

http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Why are you so upset Jilly? You and your fellow libs are probably in the 20% - upset the poll was published and the truth is out?

 

[Doug]

Let me try to spin this as best I can for the liberals.

Perhaps the question was interpreted by the people who said "Yes" ("the world will be better off if the US loses the war") were interpreting it this way:

"Losing the war" just means, as in Vietnam, saying "The hell with it" and packing up and coming home, and not getting involved in overseas adventures again. It doesn't mean American units being overrun or Americans marching out of bases with their hands up. In other words, "Losing the war" is a proxy question for "getting out of Iraq". And "the world will be better off" is a proxy question for "the US and everyone else will be better off". But, as usual in polls, the people being polled were not given an alternative question to answer, e.g. "The US will be better off if it recognizes that it cannot win in Iraq and gets out".

Some credibility to this interpretation is given by the really interesting figure here: five percent of Republicans also think the same thing!!! Surely they are not closet Chomskyites.

Now, having said that, I have to say that I think that, although some of the recipients who answered "Yes" to that question were thinking in the way I proposed in the third paragraph, I am afraid that there were some who were thinking like this:

"The US is the main terrorist state in the world today, and the main cause of the world's problems. If it would just stay home and mind its own business and not send its military abroad to support dictators in the service of big corporations and Israel, its people would be better off and so would everyone else."

That this is not just a crazy rightwing slander is shown by the rapturous reception that people like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky get in those bastions of American liberalism, the campuses.

Exactly what percentage of the Democratic voting base these people make up is probably hard to calculate. It is obviously much greater in places like Berserkeley California than in Baton Rouge Louisiana.

Even more worrying is likelihood that the people who think like this, or who incline this way, tend to be the opinion-setters in the liberal movement: the professors and Hollywood personalities and the like, rather than the blue-collar union members.

 

[hjmick]

Let me try to spin this as best I can for the liberals.

Perhaps the question was interpreted by the people who said "Yes" ("the world will be better off if the US loses the war") were interpreting it this way:

"Losing the war" just means, as in Vietnam, saying "The hell with it" and packing up and coming home, and not getting involved in overseas adventures again. It doesn't mean American units being overrun or Americans marching out of bases with their hands up. In other words, "Losing the war" is a proxy question for "getting out of Iraq". And "the world will be better off" is a proxy question for "the US and everyone else will be better off". But, as usual in polls, the people being polled were not given an alternative question to answer, e.g. "The US will be better off if it recognizes that it cannot win in Iraq and gets out".

Some credibility to this interpretation is given by the really interesting figure here: five percent of Republicans also think the same thing!!! Surely they are not closet Chomskyites.

Now, having said that, I have to say that I think that, although some of the recipients who answered "Yes" to that question were thinking in the way I proposed in the third paragraph, I am afraid that there were some who were thinking like this:

"The US is the main terrorist state in the world today, and the main cause of the world's problems. If it would just stay home and mind its own business and not send its military abroad to support dictators in the service of big corporations and Israel, its people would be better off and so would everyone else."

That this is not just a crazy rightwing slander is shown by the rapturous reception that people like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky get in those bastions of American liberalism, the campuses.

Exactly what percentage of the Democratic voting base these people make up is probably hard to calculate. It is obviously much greater in places like Berserkeley California than in Baton Rouge Louisiana.

Even more worrying is likelihood that the people who think like this, or who incline this way, tend to be the opinion-setters in the liberal movement: the professors and Hollywood personalities and the like, rather than the blue-collar union members.

Hell, you took the long road. It would have been easier to spin it this way:


1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

This is bad folks. 20% of Demcocrats in this poll think the world would be better off if the US LOSES the war in Iraq

Yeah, but 80% don't feel that way.

 

[eots]

This article from the UK Times is worth a read. Here are the most significant (read: scary) parts:

BUSH administration officials are paving the way for a smooth transition to a possible Democratic presidency as Hillary Clinton consolidates her position as the overwhelming favourite to win her party's nomination for the 2008 election.
...


In the clearest sign of a shift in gear, [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates is to appoint John Hamre, a former official in President Bill Clinton's administration, to chair the Defense Policy Board once led by Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative advocate of the invasion of Iraq. The board's job will be to prepare for the transition to a new administration in 2008, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
...
Hamre, who was Bill Clinton's deputy defence secretary in the 1990s, has been highly critical of the conduct of the war on terror . In The Washington Post last year he wrote: “The policies that led to Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret renditions and warrantless wiretaps have undermined America's towering moral authority.”

In common with Gates, Hamre is sceptical about the value of the Iraq troop surge.
...
However, Hamre, who heads the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, also argued that America “will be hurt if we crawl out or run out of Iraq." He believes the next president should maintain a vital but scaled-down presence in the country in order to oversee the training of Iraqi security forces and to “direct operations against known bad guys”.
...
Clinton has been sidestepping calls to pull US troops out of Iraq if she wins, sticking to a broader promise to begin a phased withdrawal. In a recent television interview, the New York senator refused to state that all US combat troops would leave Iraq by the end of her first term in office. She voted in the Senate last month to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation.
...
[Richard "Prince of Darkness"] Perle believes that Clinton might be prepared to order military strikes against Iran if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad takes Tehran's nuclear programme to the brink. "If President Clinton is informed in March 2009 that we've got ironclad intelligence that if we don't act within the next 30 days it's going to be too late, I wouldn't begin to predict what she would do,” Perle said. “Nobody wants to act before it is absolutely essential . . . but things can change very quickly.”
...
Bush believes Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and has privately advised her not to voice antiwar rhetoric on Iraq that she may come to regret.
...
The Treasury, under Henry “Hank” Paulson, has also been appointing Democrat supporters to senior positions. Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, reported that Paulson last week named Eric Mindich, a leading Democratic fundraiser, for a key role as an adviser on financial markets. One Republican in the Bush administration wrote disapprovingly in an e-mail: “This leads some to wonder whether this Treasury has become the preplaced Hillary Clinton team.”

Got that? It seems like even the Bush people are resigned to the fact that we will probably have a Hillary Clinton presidency on our hands come 1/20/09. But the scary part is they don't really seem too worried about it.

Even Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle thinks it's likely that Hillary would bomb Iran given the chance. Of course, after he predicted Iraq would be a great success, we may want to stop twice before we crown him Nostradamus, but the fact that he's putting this idea out there should certainly give even the most ardent Hillary supporters pause.

Shouldn't her supporters be at least slightly worried by the fact that even Bush's most loyal henchmen don't really seem to give two shits if she becomes president? Shouldn't we be aiming to elect a Democratic president who will give the Bush people nightmares? Someone who would roll back every single one of their disastrous policies?

Why are Democrats still so fond of Hillary? Are they just not paying attention to this stuff? Her full blown hawkishness on the war, her defense of lobbyists, her multiple corporate ties, her vote to declare the Iranian National Guard "terrorists," her recently discovered link to Blackwater?

What is it with you Hillary supporters?

4 more years! 4 more year--I mean, Time for a Change! Time for a Change!

 

[red states rule]

This article from the UK Times is worth a read. Here are the most significant (read: scary) parts:

BUSH administration officials are paving the way for a smooth transition to a possible Democratic presidency as Hillary Clinton consolidates her position as the overwhelming favourite to win her party's nomination for the 2008 election.
...


In the clearest sign of a shift in gear, [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates is to appoint John Hamre, a former official in President Bill Clinton's administration, to chair the Defense Policy Board once led by Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative advocate of the invasion of Iraq. The board's job will be to prepare for the transition to a new administration in 2008, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
...
Hamre, who was Bill Clinton's deputy defence secretary in the 1990s, has been highly critical of the conduct of the war on terror . In The Washington Post last year he wrote: “The policies that led to Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret renditions and warrantless wiretaps have undermined America's towering moral authority.”

In common with Gates, Hamre is sceptical about the value of the Iraq troop surge.
...
However, Hamre, who heads the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, also argued that America “will be hurt if we crawl out or run out of Iraq." He believes the next president should maintain a vital but scaled-down presence in the country in order to oversee the training of Iraqi security forces and to “direct operations against known bad guys”.
...
Clinton has been sidestepping calls to pull US troops out of Iraq if she wins, sticking to a broader promise to begin a phased withdrawal. In a recent television interview, the New York senator refused to state that all US combat troops would leave Iraq by the end of her first term in office. She voted in the Senate last month to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation.
...
[Richard "Prince of Darkness"] Perle believes that Clinton might be prepared to order military strikes against Iran if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad takes Tehran's nuclear programme to the brink. "If President Clinton is informed in March 2009 that we've got ironclad intelligence that if we don't act within the next 30 days it's going to be too late, I wouldn't begin to predict what she would do,” Perle said. “Nobody wants to act before it is absolutely essential . . . but things can change very quickly.”
...
Bush believes Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and has privately advised her not to voice antiwar rhetoric on Iraq that she may come to regret.
...
The Treasury, under Henry “Hank” Paulson, has also been appointing Democrat supporters to senior positions. Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, reported that Paulson last week named Eric Mindich, a leading Democratic fundraiser, for a key role as an adviser on financial markets. One Republican in the Bush administration wrote disapprovingly in an e-mail: “This leads some to wonder whether this Treasury has become the preplaced Hillary Clinton team.”

Got that? It seems like even the Bush people are resigned to the fact that we will probably have a Hillary Clinton presidency on our hands come 1/20/09. But the scary part is they don't really seem too worried about it.

Even Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle thinks it's likely that Hillary would bomb Iran given the chance. Of course, after he predicted Iraq would be a great success, we may want to stop twice before we crown him Nostradamus, but the fact that he's putting this idea out there should certainly give even the most ardent Hillary supporters pause.

Shouldn't her supporters be at least slightly worried by the fact that even Bush's most loyal henchmen don't really seem to give two shits if she becomes president? Shouldn't we be aiming to elect a Democratic president who will give the Bush people nightmares? Someone who would roll back every single one of their disastrous policies?

Why are Democrats still so fond of Hillary? Are they just not paying attention to this stuff? Her full blown hawkishness on the war, her defense of lobbyists, her multiple corporate ties, her vote to declare the Iranian National Guard "terrorists," her recently discovered link to Blackwater?

What is it with you Hillary supporters?

4 more years! 4 more year--I mean, Time for a Change! Time for a Change!

So Hillary is lying to her base when she says if elected she will end the war

Is that a shocker?

 

[Paulie]

So Hillary is lying to her base when she says if elected she will end the war

Is that a shocker?

ALL the democrats are, RSR. Except maybe Kucinich.

Hillary gets way more money from defense contractors like GE, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc, then any of the other Dem candidates...so do you think she is really an anti-war candidate?

The woman is going to get the nomination, and probably the presidency, because she was bought and paid for by the most influential corporations in the world. They give her the money to win, and she gives them the defense contracts and MORE WAR.

That's how the political process works. It's why the one TRUE anti-war candidate, Ron Paul, is so heavily criticized in the mainstream media, and so under-reported...even though he's probably got the most interesting campaign in the entire field. And by that, i mean how much support and money the guy has taken on, even though he's just a "nobody".

Basically, if you favor the pro-war agenda, you get to speak in America's living rooms...If you don't, you are relegated to merely getting biased, and condescending television news pieces and newspaper articles.

It doesn't take a genious to see that.

 

[red states rule]

ALL the democrats are, RSR. Except maybe Kucinich.

Hillary gets way more money from defense contractors like GE, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc, then any of the other Dem candidates...so do you think she is really an anti-war candidate?

The woman is going to get the nomination, and probably the presidency, because she was bought and paid for by the most influential corporations in the world. They give her the money to win, and she gives them the defense contracts and MORE WAR.

That's how the political process works. It's why the one TRUE anti-war candidate, Ron Paul, is so heavily criticized in the mainstream media, and so under-reported...even though he's probably got the most interesting campaign in the entire field. And by that, i mean how much support and money the guy has taken on, even though he's just a "nobody".

Basically, if you favor the pro-war agenda, you get to speak in America's living rooms...If you don't, you are relegated to merely getting biased, and condescending television news pieces and newspaper articles.

It doesn't take a genious to see that.

Now Sandy "Burgler" Berger is now working on the Hillary campaign

One crook working for another

 

[Paulie]

Now Sandy "Burgler" Berger is now working on the Hillary campaign

One crook working for another

You don't think Giuliani is a "crook"?

 

[red states rule]

You don't think Giuliani is a "crook"?

No

But I do wish he was more conservative

 

[midcan5]

Typical faux news BS. Did you read the other questions, did you pray for Bush, did you pray for the soldiers? What? How about we impeach the first and arm the second but prayer!!!

 

[red states rule]

Typical faux news BS. Did you read the other questions, did you pray for Bush, did you pray for the soldiers? What? How about we impeach the first and arm the second but prayer!!!

Fos News did not take the poll

Opinion Dynamics did. Upset the poll showed how the moonbat left DOES want the US to lose in Iraq

It has been common knowledge since the war started

 

[Larkinn]

Fos News did not take the poll

Opinion Dynamics did. Upset the poll showed how the moonbat left DOES want the US to lose in Iraq

It has been common knowledge since the war started

Except the poll didn't show that. But do keep lying.

 

[red states rule]

AMEN, baby.

I'd pay good money to see RSR's face the moment he was handed his orders to report to basic training, and subsequent deployment to the ghettos of Baghdad.

Gee, here is the first paragraph of story (I losted the link)

NEW YORK — Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.


It would seem you did even read the link or the poll

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Larkinn]

Gee, here is the first paragraph of story (I losted the link)

NEW YORK — Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.


It would seem you did even read the link or the poll

Why am I not surprised?

1)20% of Democrats does not equal "the moonbat left"
2) I know this will require some intelligence on your part (don't hurt yourself...you might want to put on your special helmet in case you fall down...), but there is a difference between what people want and what they think is best for the world.

 

[red states rule]

1)20% of Democrats does not equal "the moonbat left"
2) I know this will require some intelligence on your part (don't hurt yourself...you might want to put on your special helmet in case you fall down...), but there is a difference between what people want and what they think is best for the world.

NO, those who think the best outcome is for the US to lose in Iraq. These moonbats have put their party ahead of their country

Those like the Moveon.org nuts, Code Pink, Daily Kos, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Kennesy, and Kerry

 

[Larkinn]

NO, those who think the best outcome is for the US to lose in Iraq. These moonbats have put their party ahead of their country

Meaningless bullshit.

Those like the Moveon.org nuts, Code Pink, Daily Kos, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Kennesy, and Kerry

More lies. What a surprise. Care to back up any of those assertions with a link?