President Bush’s Standard – Hint to the Righties

12 Responses to President Bush’s Standard – Hint to the Righties

1. Your Past says:

   11/21/2005 at 12:29 pm

   Hey dump issue, Lee site has been hacked. He is unable to ban people. So why don’t you take you troll ass over there and give a what for.

   http://right-thinking.blogspot.com
2. Chris Austin says:

   11/21/2005 at 12:41 pm

   I’m on there, first comment’s in moderation. Let’s see if Lee gets jiggy w/ the book burning this time around.
3. karl says:

   11/21/2005 at 2:37 pm

   Right-thinking is hosed. Isn’t Jim K his web-master. I doubt it was a hack attack so much as just incompetent administration.
4. karl says:

   11/21/2005 at 3:00 pm

   I went over to right thinking at blogspot. Sort of reminds me of the the this is spinal tap tour when they were opening for puppet shows.

   “Drunk fat and stupid is no way to go through life.”
5. Chris Austin says:

   11/21/2005 at 5:43 pm

   Well, Lee was moderating, so it took a little while to get my stuff up there. He warned me that if I was an ‘asshole’, he’d blah blah blah.

   They’re reeling right now. A full 3-4 hours went by w/out a response in the Iraq War thread. None of the righties want to go near it right now.

   Lee was arguing that the vote on immediate withdrawal, while admitting it was a stunt, was brilliant.

   These people see the polls, they just don’t want to give it up.
6. karl says:

   11/21/2005 at 6:37 pm

   The withdrawal vote is kind of yesterdays news. I have been really busy lately, so I have not spent much time on the right wing sites, I guess the withdrawal was their best moment and they want to keep talking about it.

   Personally I think it is kind of sad that they trivialized an important issue. The war is over, it is just a matter of deciding how many more people have to die before we admit defeat and move-on.

   BTW, we can declare victory if we want, or some sort of peace with honor crap, but the fat lady has sung on this embarrassing moment in American history.
7. karl says:

   11/21/2005 at 6:47 pm

   US public support has dropped faster than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, polls show.

   By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

   WASHINGTON – The three most significant US wars since 1945 – Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq – share an important trait: As casualties mounted, American public support declined.
   In the two Asian wars, that decline proved irreversible. With Iraq, the additional bad news for President Bush is that support for the war in Iraq has eroded more quickly than it did in those two conflicts.
   For Mr. Bush, low support for his handling of the war – now at 35 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll – has depleted any reserves of “political capital” he had from his reelection and threatens his entire agenda. Last week’s bombshell political developments, both the bipartisan Senate resolution calling for more progress reports on Iraq and the stunning call for withdrawal by a Democratic hawk, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, have not helped.

   But the seeds of Bush’s woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially – from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.

   In June 2004, for the first time, more than half the public (54 percent) thought the US had made a mistake, a figure that holds today.

   With Vietnam, that 50-percent threshold was not crossed until August 1968, several years in; with Korea, it was March 1952, about a year and a half into US involvement.

   Why did Americans go sour on the Iraq war so quickly, and what can Bush do about it?

   John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University, links today’s lower tolerance of casualties to a weaker public commitment to the cause than was felt during the two previous, cold war-era conflicts. The discounting of the main justifications for the Iraq war – alleged weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism – has left many Americans skeptical of the entire enterprise.

   In fact, “I’m impressed by how high support still is,” Professor Mueller says. He notes that some Americans’ continuing connection of the Iraq war to the war on terror is fueling that support.

   In addition, intense political polarization gives Bush resilient support among Republicans.

   But among Democratic voters who supported the US-led invasion initially, most have long abandoned the president. In polls, independent voters now track mostly with Democrats. And, analysts say, once someone loses confidence in the conduct of a war, it is exceedingly difficult to woo them back.

   “[Bush’s] best option is bringing peace and security to Iraq,” says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University. “If he can accomplish that, people will think the war’s going well and that he made the right decision. But that’s proving almost impossible to achieve.”

   Pollster Daniel Yankelovich, writing in the September/October 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, states that “in my judgment the Bush administration has about a year before the public’s impatience will force it to change course.”

   Not helping the president has been the modern phenomenon of 24/7 cable news coverage, which brings instant magnification to the daily death toll and the longstanding media practice of focusing on negative developments.

   And there is the lingering public memory of Vietnam itself, which, in the Iraq war, may have made the public warier sooner of getting stuck in a quagmire.

   Scholars like Mueller at Ohio State speak of an emerging “Iraq syndrome” that will have consequences for US foreign policy long after American forces pull out – particularly in Washington’s ability to deal forcefully with other countries it views as threatening, such as North Korea and Iran.

   “Iraq syndrome” seems to be playing out, too, with the American public. The just-released quadrennial survey of American attitudes toward foreign policy – produced jointly by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations – shows a revival of isolationism. Now, 42 percent of Americans say the US should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own” – up from 30 percent in 2002.

   According to Pew Research Center director Andrew Kohut, that 42 percent figure is also similar to how the US public felt in the mid-1970s, at the end of the Vietnam War, and in the 1990s, at the end of the cold war.

   The interesting thing about this is that in the late 90’s you know the Clinton years Americans didn’t mind trying to make other countries Democratic. Now that we have seen nation building on the cheap no one seems to interested in helping other countries. I am sure their is a msage in this, I am just not sure how to phrase it. I guess you could say Clinton spent 8 years erasing Viet nam syndrome just for Bush to replace it with Iraq syndrome.
8. right thinker says:

   11/21/2005 at 8:11 pm

   I guess you could say Clinton spent 8 years erasing Viet nam syndrome just for Bush to replace it with Iraq syndrome.

   Yes, you could say that but unfortunately history shows the exact opposite. Clinton only used military power to stave off investigations into his illegal dealings. Clinton was and is a discrace to this nation and no amount of revision will change this.

   The media is poisoning this country and we all know it. They don’t report the news, they report what the DNC approves of and it’s sad. Dan Rather, NYT all of it is just pushing a left-wing agenda. The media tricked us into surrendering to those we defeated and it’s happening again.
9. Chris Austin says:

   11/21/2005 at 8:47 pm

   Right – Murtha’s speech was seven pages long. What about his speech do you disagree with? If it’s the concept of surrender…well, we’ve already declared victory, remember? How can we win the war and surrender at the same time?

   You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to mishandle a war that cost thousands their lives, but retain the ability to come off as heros when the troops are drawn down prior to the 2006 elections.

   If a Republican had come up with the idea, you’d be the first one out there saying ‘atta boy’. The time has come to do something different. If the insurgency is made up of Iraqis, then let’s get the hell out of there.

   Pride is only a small fraction of what’s at stake here, but for the GOP it’s the entire ball of wax.
10. karl says:

    11/21/2005 at 8:51 pm

    RT:

    Sometimes I mention Clinton just because I know it will bring you out.
11. right thinker says:

    11/21/2005 at 8:54 pm

    Sometimes I mention Clinton just because I know it will bring you out.

    It’s like nectar to a grizzley. Btw, I’d advise against using the word Clinton when trying to prove a point. Try “it wasn’t as bad a Clinton, or it was much worse with Clinton”.
12. right thinker says:

    11/21/2005 at 9:00 pm

    we’ve already declared victory, remember? How can we win the war and surrender at the same time?

    This is the core reason why Democrats have no clue about what is going on. The “mission accomplished” was referring to Saddam but the war is against terror and islam to a larger extent. Liberals love saying how Saddam and Al Queda had nothing to do with each other but then they lump the two together everytime.

    It’s like you knwo it’s wrong but say it anyway because it has to be right for your sound bites to hold up. The whole anti-soldier platform is based on lies, “Bush Lied”, Saddam never wanted WMDs or Nukes, Saddam was really a nice guy, Let the Iraqs die because we sure don’t give a damn and other tidbits from Al Franken, Michael Moore and Sheehan.

    If the insurgency is made up of Iraqis, then let’s get the hell out of there.

    It’s not.

Comments are closed.