The tide is turning

Doesn't matter, the dems have zero personality at the head.

DD

 

Just to counter the negativity and spin that BJ is trying to spread, here is the original poll that the story is based upon. It is worth noting that on the whole, sentiment appears to still be positive, despite the drop in support.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030701.asp

A few excerpts that CNN declined to include, lest they hinder Teddy's ability to spread a gloomy message:

Public More Positive Than Negative

Despite the decline, public opinion about the war remains more positive than negative. The reasons a majority of Americans remain positive are found in the open-ended question asking respondents why they said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over...

Still Worth Being in Iraq

Although a modest majority of Americans, 56%, say the situation was worth going to war over, a much larger majority, 69%, say that it is worth having U.S. troops in Iraq now. This view is reinforced by another question that finds 68% of Americans expressing a high degree of confidence that the United States will be able to rebuild the Iraqi economy. Also, only 24% of Americans believe that the casualties sustained by the American armed forces over the last two months -- 23 Americans have died since May 1 – are unacceptably high. Three-quarters say that this number is to be expected.

So, yes, support is dropping, but that is to be expected as the weapons have yet to turn up, and the reality of continuing Baath resistance settles in. But we are still nowhere near the level of discontent that people such as BJ desire that would trigger a pullout and American defeat. On the whole, the support is still there, and sentiments are still more positive than negative. Sorry.

 

I think it reflects the struggles we are having in Iraq right now. Once we can see "a light at the end of the tunnel," I think people will start being more enthusiastic again. They still need to establish order.

 

BJ how could you want an American defeat in Iraq!!! You shoud be ashamed.

 

But we are still nowhere near the level of discontent that people such as BJ desire that would trigger a pullout and American defeat.

You know the defense for the Bush camp is getting weak when people have to start distorting the other side's views to try to sidetrack a discussion.

 

"start"?

 

I was against the war at the time it was carried out and the way it was handled. Bush lied, and mislead in order to build support for the war. But the last thing I want is for us to pull the troops out now and leave a vaccum. Once the job is started it should be finished, and done so correctly. I wouldn't be opposed to a UN presence helping the transition, so many of our troops could come home.

What I find disheartening is the pro war crowd trying to claim what the desires of those of us that were against the war wish for.

To claim that we hope for defeat and shame is far from true. I think the most sinister thing that can be said of the anti-war group is that they are engaging in an 'I told you so' tactic. That's very different than hoping for defeat and deaths which is why they were against the war to begin with.

 

Curiously, we have still seen absolutely no evidence that Bush intentionally misled anyone here, yet you are continually spounting on about how we know that to be the case now. The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I know whether he lied about anything, and that you are the one who is intentionally misrepresenting the facts about the subject. Dare I say it: you are the one who is lying here.

But that doesn't really matter. If you say "Bush lied" enough times, then people will start to believe it, as we are seeing here. No need to actually know whether it is true or not, people will believe it.

As for you never wanting our defeat - that does not jibe with your whole position on this. It seems clear to me that you very much want our defeat, and have wanted it from day one, because you are terrified that Bush will use his two victories in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain reelection. That is crystal clear. Personally, I have no problem with you wanting him to fail in his reelection bid - as a Democrat you are entitled to that fantasy. What bothers me is that you would cost us wars and get us killed to see it, and you will use every dishonest and disingenuous trick you can think of to do it. That is not just irresponsible, that is traitorous.

As far as numbers being down - no doubt about that, they are down. That is to be expected, though. It always happens in the aftermath of a war; when the shooting stops, people start asking questions, and one criticism I have of the Bush admin right now is that they are not answering them all. They need to move as aggressively as the opposition is in the PR arena, and they are not doing so.

Still, watch what happens when Saddam is captured/killed. Watch what happens when the WMD (or their fate) are found. Those two things will inevitably happen, the question is only when. And when they do, then I suspect we "will see the tide turn again". American public opinion is fickle and subject to change, as these polls attest to. The left's slander campaign against the administration has been remarkably effective, as these polls show.

In the end, though, still more positive than negative. That is not up for argument.

 

sapling, you must have a very long ignore list to come up with this statement.

 

Treeman, I've shown the evidence in every thread imaginable that BUSH LIED. You couldn't refute it, nobody can, because he lied.

Without reposting all the old links again here's the evidence.

1.Bush claimed that he had an IAEA report from '98 claiming the IRaqi's were 6 months from a nuke.

2.The IAEA revealed that such a report never existed.

3.The Bush team tried to say it was a mistake and not a lie. Bush meant the '91 IAEA report.

4.The IAEA says that the report from '91 also didn't exist.

5.In yet another effort to coverup for Bush they say that Bush was referring to an IISS report.

6.It turns out the IISS report wasn't even in existence when Bush intially made the claim. The IISS report was released after Bush made his claim.

Bush lied, they tried to cover it up in various different ways, none of the ways hold water. You may not want to believe it, you may not be able to believe it and carry out your duty as a loyal soldier. If that's the case I'm sorry. But the facts show that BUSH LIED. The evidence has been posted time and time again.

Furthermore Condi Rice LIED. She claimed the aluminum tubes were really only suitable for one use and that was in the nuke program. It turned out that the statement was a LIE.

Sorry Treeman they LIED. There is evidence. It's not just people saying it over and over again.

Don't give me any bull about Iraq having a nuke program at one time so that means he didn't lie. We know they had one at one time that's not what the lie was.

The lie was when Bush said he had the report.

Here's the analogy I used before.

If I said I had an old invitation from my good buddy Tom Cruise to the wedding of he Nicole Kidman, I would be a LIAR. It is true that Tom and Nicole got married, but it's not true that I had an invitation.

Bush's lie was worse because of the circumstances involved, but one can lie about details even though the main fact was at one time true.

I've presented the evidence to you before and you didn't post on that thread again. You can go back and check the old thread if you want to see the links and statements.

Bud don't claim nobody has presented evidence about Bush lying. Because I have. I've done it time and time again.

 

Wow....among the many erroneous and/or objectionable statements in that last post, this one jumped out as very interesting.


So tree believes that people want us to lose the war so that the party they support will win an election. Very indicative of his thinkiing...clearly he sees a causative link between adopting a position on the war, and an individual's political agenda which, as tree himself has adopted a clear position on this war, raises interesting questions...

Ever heard the thing about not trusting a jealous woman/man, because the fact that they think you will cheat is often idicative of the fact that they would themselves? Tree just said he's jealous...

 

FB...once again, excellent post. Do you find it odd that the people who throw words like "Liar" and " Fact" around with the greatest abandon are also the ones who equivocate the most when confronted with events that don't jibe with their view?

 

1. I supported military action in Afghanistan.

2. I didn't vote for a democratic president in the last election, and I don't know if I will vote one the next time. I'll have to wait and see.

What bothers me is that you would cost us wars and get us killed to see it, and you will use every dishonest and disingenuous trick you can think of to do it. That is not just irresponsible, that is traitorous.

It would be traitrorous if it were at all true.

Being opposed to going into a war based at least partially on lies and misleding evidence isn't wanting to cause defeat. It's wanting to not be in that situation to begin with. It's about promoting goals and victories without the loss of lives.

But the biggest question about your statement is:

HOW IN THE HELL DOES ANYONE ON THIS BOARD WHO OPPOSED THE WAR COST US VICTORY IN THAT WAR AND GET ANYONE KILLED?

The only people who are getting any soldiers killed are the ones who put us into war.

 

No Worries:

Actually, my ignore list is getting quite large, but I do keep up with the news, and I don't seem to remember seeing the headline "Bush lied!", or "Congressional Committee finds that President was Untruthful", or anything along those lines.

So far, all I have seen is a bunch of conjecture by people who have predisposed biases against the president. I have yet to hear anyone in a position of authority (or even knowledge) come out and say the prez lied. Just you guys.

FB:

Look, I understand that you believe that you have a good case there, and I'm sure you're convinced, but the fact remains that it is entirely likely - dare I say it, most likely - that Bush misspoke rather than lied.

We have been over this before. In order for the prez to have intentionally misled us, he would have had to have known that the intel was false. Problem is that there was absolutely no way to know for sure whether the intel was false or true until after it had been tested against the reality inside Iraq - ie, until after the war. All evidence - *all evidence* - pointed to the fact of ongoing WMD programs. Are you saying that Bush should have just ignored all evidence, dismissed it all because it could not yet be verified? Somehow, for some reason, that sounds like a dangerous tactic for a commander in chief to take. Can't finger why...

Bottom line - you still have no proof of intentional misrepresentation. None. At best you have proof of the president screwing up in a speech - what a shocker to see that come from this president. Still got nothing.

Yes, as I said - crystal clear. What a coincidence that virtually all of the opposition are Democrats and Greenies... Yeah, must be coincidence.

For the record, Bush is definitely getting my vote. He didn't last time, but now there's no question... I'll add to his 60% approval rating.

As for being jealous - why would I be jealous? My side won, we did what we had to do, and my candidate is a shoo-in for reelection. Why - and I really do want to hear this - oh, why would I be jealous?

 

Bush did know that the intel was false since it didn't even exist in the first place. Bush knew that he didn't have an IAEA report from '98 because it never existed.

Are you saying that when Bush made the claim he was sure that he had a non-existent report?

If Bush had simply misspoke all he had to do was say so. Instead his team came up with reply after false reply to justify the statement, and not one of the excuses they put forth were legit.

So not only did Bush lie about it, they tried to cover it up with more lies.

Would somebody who just mispoke claim they were talking about a IISS report that wasn't even in existence at the time?

The proof is there, you may not be able to accept it, but it's there. And after the proof you have the tell-tale coverup in an effort to explain it all away.

 

About time for General Wesley Clark to join the field--there is some of that "personality" the Dems need.

 

FB:

Well obviously if it were just this little message board I wouldn't care, but it is not just this board. Before the war we had the antiwar crowd nearly nix the war, which would have helped no one except for Saddam, and would have left us vulnerable to a future war which would potentially have been more devastating. After the war, they are still screaming about this and that, and the *only* conceivable reason that they would do so is that they want the war reversed - want us to pack up, come home, and get a nice little defeat to set next to Vietnam.

Hell, MacBeth has openly indicated that he is against US power, and would have liked to see this war disappear simply because it exposes that power for what it is. Do you deny that this is what characters such as glynch and No Worries want? I think you'd have a hard time defending them on that one.

You personally I think are one of the more honorable anti-war people; I get the impression you're not doing it out of spite or with ulterior motives as some others obviously are. You're just misguided, that's all.

 

I'll add to his 60% approval rating.

As for being jealous - why would I be jealous? My side won, we did what we had to do, and my candidate is a shoo-in for reelection.

Yeah, he's a shoo-in for re-election ... his job approval rating doesn't show any trends or anything...

<img src=http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030702i.gif>