1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[Shogun]

Libs love to say Bush lied about WMD's - but give their fellow Dems a pass.
Bill, Hillary, Albright, Gore, Pelosi,and many others said many times Saddam had WMD's, was trying to get nukes, and was a threat

I hop0e Iraq is the top issue in 08. With the surge working very well, Dems will have to esplain how we are winning when for years they were saying we were losing

trust me.. I hope it's the main issue too. I'd bet jacks, joes and domineos that it's a liability rather than a bonus.


and what did I tell you about generalizing liberals? Did I NOT just say i'd scrap every dem that voted for the war?


however, blaming the dems on bush's CRUSADE is clearly going to come to haunt you in little under a year. We've already won in disposing saddam. Acting like iraq is our new colony is what will sink your side in 08.

 

[red states rule]

trust me.. I hope it's the main issue too. I'd bet jacks, joes and domineos that it's a liability rather than a bonus.


and what did I tell you about generalizing liberals? Did I NOT just say i'd scrap every dem that voted for the war?


however, blaming the dems on bush's CRUSADE is clearly going to come to haunt you in little under a year. We've already won in disposing saddam. Acting like iraq is our new colony is what will sink your side in 08.

Shogun, you are better then this. We do not consider Iarq a colony. When they can take care of their own security - we leave

I want to see Dems explain how after 4 years of saying the war was lost, openly wanting to cut and run from Iraq, and the smearing of the troops - try to explain how we are winning

The troops have turned this around 180 degrees - and the liberal media hates it. they try to bury or ignore the good news

 

[Alpha1]

That isn't the 9-11 Report first off.

Second that's the report where they, talk about how unreliable an informant curveball was. And page 73 talks about how Saddam Hussain kept rejecting the advances of AQ. You really want to go into that report?

Your absolutely right Jillian...I was quoting the Intelligence Report.....I stand corrected......in my haste, I admit I got the name of the report wrong.... my mistake......thanks

but the pertinent facts stand.....this report tells of what was believed at specific times....the time is what is important....

 

[jillian]

Your absolutely right Jillian...I was quoting the Intelligence Report.....I stand corrected......in my haste, I admit I got the name of the report wrong.... my mistake......thanks

but the pertinent facts stand.....this report tells of what was believed at specific times....the time is what is important....

Actually, the report says the OPPOSITE of what you said... it says that the intel given by curveball was unreliable and that Saddam Hussain kept rebuffing AQ.

I know that must be unimportant to you.

 

[Shogun]

Shogun, you are better then this. We do not consider Iarq a colony. When they can take care of their own security - we leave

I want to see Dems explain how after 4 years of saying the war was lost, openly wanting to cut and run from Iraq, and the smearing of the troops - try to explain how we are winning

The troops have turned this around 180 degrees - and the liberal media hates it. they try to bury or ignore the good news

I'll believe that we'll leave when we do just that. Building a beachhead in Baghdad isn't convincing. It doesn't matter if we dont use the nomenclature Colony. Hell, you are familiar with how we dance around terms in order to skirt their meaning, eh rendition?

You say WINNING as if, by next year at this same time, there will be any discernable difference than what we see today. You use victory as some carrot to dangle in front of America for the sake of political identity. Again, are there ANY statements you want to say now and won't dance around in 6 months? You know, like predicting when green zones and flak jackets will no longer be required..

You remind me of the scene in the movie Full Metal Jacket where Joker is told to make shit up for morale purposes. Empty wishful thinking won't solve this giant fuckup, dude. Trust me, if there were actual discernable changes taking place IT WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS.

 

[Alpha1]

Actually, the report says the OPPOSITE of what you said... it says that the intel given by curveball was unreliable and that Saddam Hussain kept rebuffing AQ.

I know that must be unimportant to you.

Are you telling me that what I read on Page 70 and 71 isn't there ?

I didn't mention "curveball" or any other source...I pointed out what the CIA was concluding from their intell. before the war, and what the commission concluded through Monday morning quarterbacking.....its not relevant that the CIA was right or wrong....its what they believed and reported at that particular time....

 

[Alpha1]

Its like insisting to your doctor that your arm is broken and when an xray proves its not, blaming the doctor for giving you an unnecessary xray....

 

[Shogun]

Its like insisting to your doctor that your arm is broken and when an xray proves its not, blaming the doctor for giving you an unnecessary xray....

HA!

uh huh...

 

[Big_D]

Shogun, you are better then this. We do not consider Iarq a colony. When they can take care of their own security - we leave

I want to see Dems explain how after 4 years of saying the war was lost, openly wanting to cut and run from Iraq, and the smearing of the troops - try to explain how we are winning

The troops have turned this around 180 degrees - and the liberal media hates it. they try to bury or ignore the good news

Why do you believe that we have turned a corner in this war?

 

[Dr Grump]

You might be able to show correlation.
You cannot show causation, nor intent.
So, you'll simply believe what you want to believe, regardless of how <b>poorly</b> that belief is supported.

You think that at one stage 70% of Americans thought that Sadman had something to do with 9/11 is "poorly" supported? What do you do for an encore, say Bush's current polling shows that America loves the dude?

Answer this question M14 - if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck is it a duck or a polar bear?

 

[eots]

Bush: If I Were Iraqi, I'd Be Saying, ?God, I Love Freedom'

Think Progress | November 8, 2007

This afternoon, President Bush held a joint press conference with French President Nicholas Sarkozy. A reporter asked Bush where he stood ?on Iraq and your domestic debate on Iraq,? and whether he had a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. In response, Bush insisted that ?freedom's happening? and Iraq isn't in a ?quagmire?:

I don't ? you know quagmire is an interesting word. If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you'd be saying: God, I love freedom, because that's what's happened.

And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom's happening in Iraq. And we're making progress.




In June, Gen. David Petraeus said that U.S. troops had been in Iraq ?long enough to become liberators again,? echoing Vice President Cheney's infamous pre-war prediction that the United States would ?be greeted as liberators.?

Almost five years, 3857 U.S. troop deaths, and more than 76,000 Iraqi civilian deaths later, Bush can't figure out why Iraqis aren't jumping around rejoicing in their freedom. (Maybe it's because they've all left the country.)

 

[Psychoblues]

What a GREAT CONVERSATION!!!!!!!!

Do the right wingers consider ignorance a virtue?

 

[Diuretic]

What a GREAT CONVERSATION!!!!!!!!

Do the right wingers consider ignorance a virtue?

More likely a pre-requisite.

 

[red states rule]

More bad news for the left


November 06, 2007
Ten Months of Opinion Change on War and More

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ten_mo...n_change_o.php



Pollster.com: 'Remarkable' Positive Opinion Change on Iraq
By Mark Finkelstein | November 9, 2007 - 06:59 ET
Being against the war after she was for it, could it be soon be time for Hillary to be for it again?

The question arises in light of the findings by Charles Franklin [pictured here] at Pollster.com. According to his November 6th Pollster.com analysis, there has been a "remarkable" shift, in a positive direction, in public opinion on the war in Iraq.

Excerpts from Franklin's Ten Months of Opinion Change on War and More

Some interesting changes have taken place in opinion about the war, the president, congress and the country. It is too early, and the changes too modest, to declare this a "turning point" in opinion, but the changes are consistent enough to take a hard look and ponder if there is still potential for significant shifts over the next 52 weeks until Election Day 2008.

The single most striking shift is the change in opinion about how the war in Iraq is going. After four and a half years of steady downward trends, there has been a reversal of direction since July.

From January through June, the long running collapse in positive evaluation of the war (especially in the second half of 2006) halted. The flattening now appears to have clearly coincided with the change in command and troop levels.

This flattening didn't signal rising opinion on the war-- but after dropping over 13 percentage points in six months, simply arresting the collapse was a major plus for the administration. And this is a particularly striking thing given that the spring of 2007 was a focal point for critiques of the war in Congress, with Democratic leadership repeatedly pushing votes that would have required changes in Iraq policy of various kinds. And this flattening came at the same time that casualties rose.

The second phase of opinion change started in early July, when positive evaluations of the war took their first upturn since late 2003 (around the time of the capture of Saddam Husein). The trend estimate has turned up some 8 percentage points since July 1, still not back to early 2006 levels, but remarkable this late in an unpopular war and with a weak leader and determined opposition.

Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster. The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.

How will the MSM cover this news? The New York Times didn't exactly splash it across the front page, but a discussion of the Pollster report did turn up yesterday in the Times's "Opinionator" blog. Opinionator Tobin Harshaw, after describing the Pollster report, offered a critique of it by Kevin Drum of the liberal "Washington Monthly." Observed Harshaw: "It’s a good point, but I suspect some will feel Mr. Drum shows a bit too much pleasure in making it."

Pollster.com is anything but a GOP front. Head honcho Mark Blumenthal logged 20 years as a Dem consultant, and Franklin is a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin, hardly a hotbed of pro-Republican activism. Judging from this bio, Franklin is a highly-respected polling expert, not a partisan. He is is the past president of the Society for Political Methodology, and works as an ABC election-night consultant.

Perhaps most notable is Franklin's finding that the best efforts of the Dems -- abetted by their MSM allies -- to persuade Americans that the war is a disaster failed. There's a long way to go from now till election day. But couple this news with yesterday's report that our forces have completely rid Baghdad of al-Qaeda-in-Iraq.

Do we detect the sound of Hillary's flip . . . flopping?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...on-change-iraq

 

[M14 Shooter]

You think that at one stage 70% of Americans thought that Sadman had something to do with 9/11 is "poorly" supported?

No... as I have said about 100 times, the "poorly supported" part comes in when attributing this change to anything the Bush administration did -- correlation v causation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

More likely a pre-requisite.

I'll take that over the blatant stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of the left, any day.

 

[maineman]

No... as I have said about 100 times, the "poorly supported" part comes in when attributing this change to anything the Bush administration did -- correlation v causation.

and I have asked you over and over and over again to suggest some other explanation for how 70% of America came to believe something that wasn't true.

Do you have any thoughts on that at all?????

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and I have asked you over and over and over again to suggest some other explanation for how 70% of America came to believe something that wasn't true.

Do you have any thoughts on that at all?????

Americans believe lots of things that are not true in large numbers. Doesn't then mean that a President that STATED FOR THE RECORD over and over that Saddam Hussein was NOT linked to 9/11 somehow convinced them otherwise.

Again the Admin claimed Saddam Hussein was searching out terrorists to attack us. Proven by documents obtained after the invasion. One of those groups was Al Quaeda. Stating that does not then mean one is saying Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Especially when the Admin makes specific statements that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in 9/11.

 

[maineman]

Americans believe lots of things that are not true in large numbers. Doesn't then mean that a President that STATED FOR THE RECORD over and over that Saddam Hussein was NOT linked to 9/11 somehow convinced them otherwise.

yes. it does. I think he stated it for the record a few times and only after he had insinuated exactly the opposite for months on end.

 

[red states rule]

yes. it does. I think he stated it for the record a few times and only after he had insinuated exactly the opposite for months on end.

Link please?