I know there are republicans who didn't agree with gulf war 2

[SuperDemocrat]

I started to think about why Bush's popularity sank to low 30s and I realized that the public was losing its patients with a war that seemed to drag on forever. I remember that CNN and most other democratic broadcasting companies just seem to play up every single death of a soldier. It just destroyed the public's support for the war since Americans generally are not like the Spartans of Greece.

Nearly half of the people that voted for Bush in 2004 was no longer supporting him by 2006. I believe that there are a lot of republicans who didn't like the war for various reasons. I really believe that was what undid republican support and led to the eventual takeover by the democratic party between 2006 and now.

Another interesting fact is that the military tends to vote republican because of vietnam. But in recent years that has been changing. I believe the reason why is that military personel might say they support the commander and chief's decisions but how they and their families vote might be show their real feelings about it.

The point I am making is that the republican party (and the military) as a whole should learn a lesson from this. They can't launch a war because the democratic left will cry about it the whole time. It is better to let democratic presidents bomb the shit out of other countries because the media will do their job and disperse the proper propaganda to the people because we all know that most of the media covers for the democratic party. They are going to give whatever war they start the proper send off.

The moral of the story if you want your war to be popular make sure it is launched under a democratic president and if you want your war to be unpopular do it under a republican president. That is the way it seems to work in this country.

 

[amrchaos]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

Bill Clinton bombed more countries than Ronald Reagen ever did.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

I actually like those economic polices. There were actually a lot of jobs back then...

 

[amrchaos]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

Bill Clinton bombed more countries than Ronald Reagen ever did.

So, what is your point?

You do know that Clinton faced criticisms for bombing nations as well as his intervention in the Balkans, right?

Does the movie 'Wag the dog' suggest anything to you?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Most of the media went along with the Iraq war. They blasted it when casualties went up but I got the feeling that if it were a democratic president they would have tucked those causalities away from the public just like everything else they do. It is like democrats want to get into every institution and use them for the sole purpose of controlling this country.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

Bill Clinton bombed more countries than Ronald Reagen ever did.

So, what is your point?

You do know that Clinton faced criticisms for bombing nations as well as his intervention in the Balkans, right?

Does the movie 'Wag the dog' suggest anything to you?

It didn't affect the popularity of his presidency.

 

[amrchaos]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

I actually like those economic polices. There were actually a lot of jobs back then...

There were two leading right wing economic thought during the Bush administration

Tax cuts increase revenue
War is an economic stimulus.

However, government revenue waxed and waned during the Bush administration. Add in the fact that projections from the late 90s suggested that the overall debt should shrink during this time but did not, one would have to question if these were the best economic policies by the right. I do not think so.

The middle to end of the Clinton administration, under the fiscal conservative Gingrich Congress, was probably the best set of economic policies that produced job growth, increased fed revenue and implemented sound budgetary policies.

Somewhere during the Bush administration(9/11, Iraq war, the recession at the end of the Clinton administration) something went awry and was never corrected.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

I actually like those economic polices. There were actually a lot of jobs back then...

There were two leading right wing economic thought during the Bush administration

Tax cuts increase revenue
War is an economic stimulus.

However, government revenue waxed and waned during the Bush administration. Add in the fact that projections from the late 90s suggested that the overall debt should shrink during this time but did not, one would have to question if these were the best economic policies by the right. I do not think so.

The middle to end of the Clinton administration, under the fiscal conservative Gingrich Congress, was probably the best set of economic policies that produced job growth, increased fed revenue and implemented sound budgetary policies.

Somewhere during the Bush administration(9/11, Iraq war, the recession at the end of the Clinton administration) something went awry and was never corrected.

government revenue waxed

This is not a recognizable phrase that can be understood. Come back when you learn english.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

I actually like those economic polices. There were actually a lot of jobs back then...

There were two leading right wing economic thought during the Bush administration

Tax cuts increase revenue
War is an economic stimulus.

However, government revenue waxed and waned during the Bush administration. Add in the fact that projections from the late 90s suggested that the overall debt should shrink during this time but did not, one would have to question if these were the best economic policies by the right. I do not think so.

The middle to end of the Clinton administration, under the fiscal conservative Gingrich Congress, was probably the best set of economic policies that produced job growth, increased fed revenue and implemented sound budgetary policies.

Somewhere during the Bush administration(9/11, Iraq war, the recession at the end of the Clinton administration) something went awry and was never corrected.

Tax cuts increase revenue
War is an economic stimulus.

Revenue did increase. The official government records show that.
I don't remember any republican or democrat ever saying that. Please stop confusing fantasy with reality.

 

[amrchaos]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

Bill Clinton bombed more countries than Ronald Reagen ever did.

So, what is your point?

You do know that Clinton faced criticisms for bombing nations as well as his intervention in the Balkans, right?

Does the movie 'Wag the dog' suggest anything to you?

It didn't affect the popularity of his presidency.

Clinton did not tie his presidency to any off his wars.
Given the economy at the time, it would be foolish to do so for Clinton

The Bush administration did through terrorism. Hence as the war became more unpopular, so went Bush popularity.

Notice that Bush Sr popularity increased after the first Gulf War. Instead of staying and creating more goals, Bush Sr. left a residual force after finishing the goals set.
The 2nd Bush kept moving the goal post until McCain statement of permanent occupancy like in Japan, Korea and Germany sent a significant portion of the public.

Just enough to help Obama into the Whitehouse.

 

[amrchaos]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

I actually like those economic polices. There were actually a lot of jobs back then...

There were two leading right wing economic thought during the Bush administration

Tax cuts increase revenue
War is an economic stimulus.

However, government revenue waxed and waned during the Bush administration. Add in the fact that projections from the late 90s suggested that the overall debt should shrink during this time but did not, one would have to question if these were the best economic policies by the right. I do not think so.

The middle to end of the Clinton administration, under the fiscal conservative Gingrich Congress, was probably the best set of economic policies that produced job growth, increased fed revenue and implemented sound budgetary policies.

Somewhere during the Bush administration(9/11, Iraq war, the recession at the end of the Clinton administration) something went awry and was never corrected.

government revenue waxed

This is not a recognizable phrase that can be understood. Come back when you learn english.

You never heard of the term 'waxed and waned'?

 

[healthmyths]

I started to think about why Bush's popularity sank to low 30s and I realized that the public was losing its patients with a war that seemed to drag on forever. I remember that CNN and most other democratic broadcasting companies just seem to play up every single death of a soldier. It just destroyed the public's support for the war since Americans generally are not like the Spartans of Greece.

Nearly half of the people that voted for Bush in 2004 was no longer supporting him by 2006. I believe that there are a lot of republicans who didn't like the war for various reasons. I really believe that was what undid republican support and led to the eventual takeover by the democratic party between 2006 and now.

Another interesting fact is that the military tends to vote republican because of vietnam. But in recent years that has been changing. I believe the reason why is that military personel might say they support the commander and chief's decisions but how they and their families vote might be show their real feelings about it.

The point I am making is that the republican party (and the military) as a whole should learn a lesson from this. They can't launch a war because the democratic left will cry about it the whole time. It is better to let democratic presidents bomb the shit out of other countries because the media will do their job and disperse the proper propaganda to the people because we all know that most of the media covers for the democratic party. They are going to give whatever war they start the proper send off.

The moral of the story if you want your war to be popular make sure it is launched under a democratic president and if you want your war to be unpopular do it under a republican president. That is the way it seems to work in this country.

AND NOT ONE of them had any more common sense to understand the meaning of this illustration.

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??
But when it came to Obama? This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"??? That's not reporting, that's gushing!
So why would NewsWeek or any of the other MSM be objective and produce "objective" information on which people base opinions.
But the proof is here:
This study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans. Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Finally here is this article describing HOW POLLING is affected by the media:
Partisanship and race probably influence the MSM’s “slobbering love affair” with Obama.
MSM denizens are overwhelmingly left-wing Democrats, which this site’s readers know very well.
Left-wing Democrats in the MSM likely accept the belief that racism motivates any criticism of Obama.
Since they are loath to express any sentiment that could be so construed, they sing his praises and refuse to report anything that could be considered critical of him. (Expect the MSM to laud Obama’s deal with Iran.)
Given the MSM’s infatuation with Obama and the fact that many Americans still rely on the MSM for the news, is there any wonder that polls show public approval of his job performance, and especially that perceptions of him as a person, remain higher than they might otherwise be?
Articles: Why So Many People Regard Obama Positively

So given the FACTS the MSM with their constant biased reporting about Iraq NEVER told people like you and even these GOPers... these FACTS that
were positives from the Liberation of Iraq...a title of the BILL that Clinton signed in 1998 authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam!
A) If it weren't for GWB's balls 2.8 million children were saved from starvation as the NYT has said!
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
1991 CEASE FIRE to 1995 is 4 years.. 576,000 starved is 144,000 kids a year.
1995 to 2015 is 20 years... If Saddam still in power at 144,000 times 20 years that is 2.8 million children that would have starved.
But of course crude people like you with no compassion would have NO problem with Saddam staying in power and these kids dying!
B) Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
It turns out Saddam Hussein did possess a weapon of mass destruction and he used it in a slaughter that few have heard of until now after the Gulf War in 1991, the dictator spent untold millions on this weapon, designed to exterminate an ancient civilization called the "Ma'dan," also known as the "Marsh Arabs."
In a five-year project 90 percent of the marshes were drained - an area of more than 3,000 square miles.
"... the marsh dwellers were important elements in the uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime. To end the rebellion, the regime implemented an intensive system of drainage and water diversion structures that desiccated over 90% of the marshes. The reed beds were also burned and poison introduced to the waters.
It is estimated that more than 500,000 were displaced, 95,000 of them to Iran, 300,000 internally displaced, and the remainder to other countries. By January 2003, the majority of the marshes were wastelands.
"As an engineer, I'm telling you, drying of the marshes is definitely not an easy task. It's a monumental engineering project," Alwash explained. "He put every piece of equipment available in Iraq under his control at the services of the projects needed to dry the marshes."
"Saddam was using water as a weapon?" Pelley asked.
"You know, the world was looking for weapons of mass destruction. And the evidence was right under its nose," Alwash.
Resurrecting Eden

Where were you and these idiot GOPers including Trump who I strongly endorse when those events occurred?
Why wasn't THIS broadcasted by other sources... by the MSM???
AGAIN Biased MSM who voted with their pocketbooks for Obama in 2008 , 1,160 or 85% of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
So in reality why would these "journalists" write negative stories about Obama and positive about his opponent?
They wouldn't. They gave money to Obama for his election!

So why didn't the MSM go after Obama and these other traitors that ENCOURAGED the killing of US troops in Iraq when these traitors said these words:
Later these traitors like Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." said:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

 

[amrchaos]

So you are saying the media played no roll in selling the Iraq war to the public?

No, the MSM oversold the Iraq war. Just like it over the Arab spring and the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia!

Then it came back criticizing Obamas policies.

Maybe you do not notice it due to your hypersensitivity for right wing policies, but it is present.

Any war, started by either Republican or Democrat, will be criticized. The longer it runs, the more criticism it will face.


I hope this realization teaches you what a bad propaganda lesson of staying the course embodied for the Republican party. This should also tell you why the GOP foreign and economic policies lost them the 2008 elections.

I actually like those economic polices. There were actually a lot of jobs back then...

There were two leading right wing economic thought during the Bush administration

Tax cuts increase revenue
War is an economic stimulus.

However, government revenue waxed and waned during the Bush administration. Add in the fact that projections from the late 90s suggested that the overall debt should shrink during this time but did not, one would have to question if these were the best economic policies by the right. I do not think so.

The middle to end of the Clinton administration, under the fiscal conservative Gingrich Congress, was probably the best set of economic policies that produced job growth, increased fed revenue and implemented sound budgetary policies.

Somewhere during the Bush administration(9/11, Iraq war, the recession at the end of the Clinton administration) something went awry and was never corrected.

Tax cuts increase revenue
War is an economic stimulus.

Revenue did increase. The official government records show that.
I don't remember any republican or democrat ever saying that. Please stop confusing fantasy with reality.

The Bush administration gave out two tax cuts within a two year span.

The first tax cut was considered too shallow since federal revenue was still decreasing at an alarming pace(2001) . The second tax cut saw a dramatic increase in revenue afterwards.(2003). However, this increase was not reflected in overall GDP nor brought revenue to 2000 levels.

You do not find that strange? Shouldn't tax cuts effect GDP much stronger than federal revenue?

Aside: about Laffa theory. The laffa curve does not predict that revenue shall always increase when one decrease the tax rate. What it does predict is that there is a point on the curve in which there is maximum federal revenue then federal revenue falls to zero as the tax rate falls to zero.

In many ways, this makes sense since at extremely high tax rates, people will most likely not pay, and at zero rate there is no revenue from taxes. So the rate returning maximum revenue is somewhere between zero and 100 percent(better is 0 and 50% due to recognition of the tax revolts during the depression when tax rates floated around 50% for the average person.)

Once the rate passes this maximum point, cutting taxes will not increase revenue. However will still increase GDP but only slightly(there is only so much space left for max GDP which theoretically occurs at zero tax rate!)

Tax cuts is strongly correlated to GDP. Federal revenue is strongly correlated to the product of GDP and Tax rate. The product does not go to infinity as tax rates goes to zero, instead, the product eventually descends to zero after some point.

If anything, we should find this maximum for federal revenue and fix the tax rate there.

 

[Wilbur Right]

and I realized that the public was losing its patients with a war

This is not a recognizable phrase that can be understood. Come back when you learn english.

Patients? Really? Is this a new Medicare problem?
And you are giving English critiques? LMAO.


Ever notice how your ability to be lucid waxes and wanes as the day moves on?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Nope, never did. Afghanistan, yes but even then the terrorists were from saudi. Would have used hussein as a hedge against iran. Instead, now we're helping iran build a bomb.

 

[amrchaos]

Nope, never did. Afghanistan, yes but even then the terrorists were from saudi. Would have used hussein as a hedge against iran. Instead, now we're helping iran build a bomb.

As crazy as it may sound, we may need Iran help to go against the Saudis!

It turns out they may be biggest sponsors and producers of global jihad. Creating more terrorists and teachers of Islamic jihad than any other Muslim nation including Iran

Our so called ally is stabbing us in the back. We have to reposition ourselves to deal with it.