I'm sick of these countries aiding and abetting the enemy.
Italy, Spain, Poland, Japan, South Korea and now Denmark and Britain.
Italy, Spain, Poland, Japan, South Korea and now Denmark and Britain.
Cut and run nations
- Thread starter kosar
- Start date
lol-
Latvia never was actually in Iraq, unlike the other mentioned countries. However, they have a hell of a Catholic program.
Hey, at least Australia still hangs tough with us. All 100 or so troops they can supply. ...Of course once that nation gets a healthy dose of The Dick in person they might change their attitude.
This doesn't make sense though. DTB told me that the world was becoming more conservative and loyal to our wars.
This doesn't make sense though. DTB told me that the world was becoming more conservative and loyal to our wars.
Yes,
DTB is proud of(according to him and off the top of my head) Spain, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy and surely a few that I can't recall, becoming 'conservative' over the last few years.
Total troops committed from these post 9/11 'converts' put together in Iraq and Afghanistan? A few hundred. They're all over it.
Matt Heres link where you can make contributions to your cause-----you can make a difference
codepink.kintera.org/donate
and maybe you can pick a few more out of this lot-don't miss the "birds of a feather"--
Anti-War Crowd Backs Notorious Dictators, Communists
By Kathleen Rhodes
CNSNews.com Correspondent
January 19, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - Insisting that they are "not criminals, they are patriots," an array of Bush-bashing protesters is making last-minute plans for their Inauguration Day demonstrations in Washington. However, the protesters have more in common than an aversion to war. They have a history of sympathizing with America's enemies including North Korea and Cuba, and they look to a former U.S. attorney general for guidance.
"We're coming in a spirit of non-violence," Shahid Buttar, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and political activist, emphasized, at a Jan. 12 news conference at the National Press Club, where various left-wing groups announced plans for "non-violent" protests.
Nancy Shia, organizer of Critical Mass and a self-described freelance photographer/activist, outlined plans for a Critical Mass bike ride on Inauguration Day. Her group's protest is intended to be "creative, not confrontational," she told reporters. "We intend to cooperate with police."
Jim Macdonald, a D.C. Anti-War Network (DAWN) organizer, said the group would be protesting the "war here at home on our civil liberties." The protests would "promote a world of peace and justice," he added.
Macdonald's group is planning a march, a rally, and civil disobedience in the form of a 'die-in,' featuring 1,000 black-draped coffins to symbolize the U.S. soldiers who have died in the war in Iraq.
Sister Shazza Nzingha, national chairwoman and founder of the National Alliance of Black Panthers, denounced what she called President Bush's "occupation of Iraq, his occupation of Palestine, his occupation of Haiti," and said her group would protest the president's "anti-people policies."
Lila Kaye of the Anarchist Resistance, which boasts of "smash[ing] a Secret Service checkpoint," burning an American flag, and "pelt[ing] the motorcade with trash" at the last Bush inauguration in 2001, said her group was also planning a non-violent march.
She said people worldwide are suffering from Bush's policies and that Thursday's protest will be an attempt to "stand in solidarity with those people." She added that Bush is responsible for "genocide."
Sarah Kauffman, field director for Turn Your Back on Bush (TYBOB), discussed the group's plan to protest "without signs, without pins, without placards." TYBOB members will turn their backs on the presidential motorcade to symbolize what they see as Bush turning his back on Iraq, the international community, the economy, the environment and schools.
Buttar said there will be "multiple actions all over the city," and "several thousand (people involved) at a minimum, but denied the existence of any kind of "grand organization."
However, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and the International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition were named as major players in the protests.
While these groups have been recognized for their large, noticeable protests over the years, they have also been accused of anti-American activity, and their leadership includes unapologetic sympathizers of regimes and political entities that are considered enemies of the United States.
Ramsey Clark is the answer
The International ANSWER Coalition is directed by Ramsey Clark, who rose to fame as U.S. attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, but since then has publicly defended radical regimes around the world and offered legal assistance to some of the world's most notorious and reviled figures.
Clark is currently part of the legal defense team for ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He also defended former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosovic in the International Criminal Court when Milosovic was charged with ethnic cleansing, and according to a November 2002 World Net Daily article, represented a Rwandan pastor who had been charged with participating in the genocide of Tutsi civilians.
In 1986, Clark reportedly defended the Palestine Liberation Organization in a lawsuit brought by the family of American Leon Klinghoffer, the tourist who was killed by PLO terrorists in the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship.
According to the Capital Research Center, Clark also founded the International Action Center (IAC), a spin-off of the Workers World Party (WWP), and has served as the official spokesman for the WWP since the early 1990s when he led the group's National Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East.
The Workers World Party, which describes itself as a "revolutionary socialist" political party in the United States, was founded in 1959, the same year Fidel Castro rose to power in Cuba.
The WWP, according to the World Net Daily article, defended the Chinese communist government's use of tanks in its bloody suppression of pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Articles in Workers World, the WWP newspaper, blamed the students for "violent attacks on the soldiers," insisting the "events were a battle," and not, as many media organizations in the West characterized it, "a massacre."
While claiming to support workers' rights, the WWP defended the Soviet suppression of worker rebellions in Hungary in the 1950s, Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and Poland in the early 1980s, according to Politics1. The WWP also reportedly supported the 1991 KGB coup against then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.
In May 2001, FBI Director Louis Freeh labeled the WWP a "domestic terrorist group" in a statement to several U.S. Senate committees. "Anarchists and extremist socialist groups ... such as the Workers World Party have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States," Freeh said at the time.
"""""""""Birds of a Feather""""""""""
Clark is not the only link between International ANSWER and the International Action Center. The International ANSWER steering committee includes members of IAC and the two groups share office space at 39 West 14th Street in New York City, along with a long list of left-wing, anti-war activist groups, according to an April 2004 report by the Capital Research Center and a number of other reports.
"Basically, ANSWER is dominated by the IAC, which is largely a front for the Workers World Party ..." said Stephen Zunes, chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, in a 2003 report in the Mercury News.
In a statement on the Workers Work Party website, the group claims that its "anti-war and anti-racist movements" are part of a socialist vision. It advertises the International Action Center's inaugural protest and has a phone number for information about transportation.
According to Politics1, the WWP also currently or in the past has sponsored or directed groups like the All People's Congress, the Nicaragua Network, the Alliance for Global Justice, Pastors for Peace, the Korean Truth Commission, the Movement for a People's Assembly, the National People's Campaign, the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the U.S. Invasion of Panama and the Campaign to Stop Settlements in Occupied Palestine.
Politics1 data indicates that some of these groups also have members on the International ANSWER steering committee and work out of the New York City building on West 14th Street. Other groups claiming the same address are Millions for Mumia, the People's Video Network, VoteNoWar.org, VoteToImpeach.org, and the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five.
Sympathies for North Korean dictator
Brian Becker, national coordinator for International ANSWER and organizer of a number of anti-Bush anti-war rallies, is a supporter of North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong Il. According to Becker's own statements, he has spent considerable time in North Korea advocating for the reunification of the Korean peninsula and denouncing U.S. troop presence in the Demilitarized Zone.
Although President Bush included North Korea in his famous "Axis of Evil" speech and Kim's policies are said by some in the Bush administration to be responsible for the starvation and death of approximately 2 million North Koreans, Becker claimed in an interview in Pyongyang in March 2002 that it was the U.S. that had carried out a campaign of genocide against the North Korean people.
A 2003 National Review report revealed that Becker, in concert with the Workers World Party, was an aggressive supporter of the former Soviet Union and opponent of what Becker labeled "U.S. imperialism." He claimed the Soviets "sent invaluable aid to Vietnam, Cuba, the African National Congress in South Africa, and other national-liberation movements."
In support of Castro and the Sandinistas
United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), an "umbrella group" of over 100 left wing groups, including the Young Communist League, Communist Party USA, and various state communist parties, will also be involved in the Jan. 20 protests. The background of the UFPJ leadership is similar to that of International ANSWER.
Leslie Cagan, the national coordinator for UFPJ, is a known supporter of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and in her time as director of the Cuba Information Project, defended Cuba against what she called the "brutality and power of the U.S. government," according to a February 2003 FrontPage Magazine report.
According to this report, Cagan in the late 1960s and early 1970s was allied with the Venceremos Brigades, a rebel group organized by Castro's intelligence agency, which trained "brigadistas" in guerilla warfare tactics.
In the mid 1980s, Cagan advocated the cause of the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua as coordinator of the National Mobilization for Justice and Peace in Central America. A FrontPage Magazine report claimed that Cagan led marches of up to 75,000 people against U.S. aid to the Contras who opposed the Sandinista government.
Code Pink, another prominent counter-inaugural group which falls under the umbrella of UFPJ, includes prominent anti-capitalists like Medea Benjamin, who played a key organizing role in the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization riots, according to a website for Global Exchange, another activist group headed by Benjamin. The riots in Seattle caused millions of dollars in property damage, according to numerous news reports.
Benjamin also served as project coordinator for the Institute for Food and Development Policy, which reportedly sent aid to the Sandinistas. Benjamin claimed in her book, "I, Senator" that she "fought Ronald Reagan's illegal and immoral war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua."
In a 2001 San Francisco Chronicle article, Benjamin was asked about protestors sympathizing with so-called enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the communist Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she said.
In another Chronicle report, Benjamin was asked to compare communist Cuba, which she had visited in the 1980s, with the United States. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said of Cuba.
Who is Funding These Groups?
Observers of the anti-war movement have speculated about the way these organizations, International ANSWER in particular, are funded. According to the Capital Research Center, the groups are sponsored by non-profit, tax exempt groups. Individuals or organizations may make tax-deductible contributions to the 501(c)3 non-profit, which then transfers funds to the activist groups.
Tracing the funds, however, is "all but impossible," according to the CRC.
Contributions to International ANSWER or the International Action Center may be made through the People's Rights Fund, yet another group sharing the New York City address and categorized as a 501(c)3 nonprofit "charity."
When Shahid Buttar, the Washington, D.C., lawyer, was asked at the Jan 12 news conference how the counter-inaugural events would be funded, she stressed the unimportance of money, calling the efforts the "people's uprising."
Macdonald mentioned that a lot of donations came through the groups' websites, but named UFPJ as one of the "big, overarching groups." UFPJ contributed $1,500 for the protests, which Macdonald described as "our biggest funding source."
He emphasized that there hasn't been much funding otherwise. "We're doing this for free," using "resources of the people." Macdonald said those involved are "willing to be transparent."
codepink.kintera.org/donate
and maybe you can pick a few more out of this lot-don't miss the "birds of a feather"--
Anti-War Crowd Backs Notorious Dictators, Communists
By Kathleen Rhodes
CNSNews.com Correspondent
January 19, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - Insisting that they are "not criminals, they are patriots," an array of Bush-bashing protesters is making last-minute plans for their Inauguration Day demonstrations in Washington. However, the protesters have more in common than an aversion to war. They have a history of sympathizing with America's enemies including North Korea and Cuba, and they look to a former U.S. attorney general for guidance.
"We're coming in a spirit of non-violence," Shahid Buttar, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and political activist, emphasized, at a Jan. 12 news conference at the National Press Club, where various left-wing groups announced plans for "non-violent" protests.
Nancy Shia, organizer of Critical Mass and a self-described freelance photographer/activist, outlined plans for a Critical Mass bike ride on Inauguration Day. Her group's protest is intended to be "creative, not confrontational," she told reporters. "We intend to cooperate with police."
Jim Macdonald, a D.C. Anti-War Network (DAWN) organizer, said the group would be protesting the "war here at home on our civil liberties." The protests would "promote a world of peace and justice," he added.
Macdonald's group is planning a march, a rally, and civil disobedience in the form of a 'die-in,' featuring 1,000 black-draped coffins to symbolize the U.S. soldiers who have died in the war in Iraq.
Sister Shazza Nzingha, national chairwoman and founder of the National Alliance of Black Panthers, denounced what she called President Bush's "occupation of Iraq, his occupation of Palestine, his occupation of Haiti," and said her group would protest the president's "anti-people policies."
Lila Kaye of the Anarchist Resistance, which boasts of "smash[ing] a Secret Service checkpoint," burning an American flag, and "pelt[ing] the motorcade with trash" at the last Bush inauguration in 2001, said her group was also planning a non-violent march.
She said people worldwide are suffering from Bush's policies and that Thursday's protest will be an attempt to "stand in solidarity with those people." She added that Bush is responsible for "genocide."
Sarah Kauffman, field director for Turn Your Back on Bush (TYBOB), discussed the group's plan to protest "without signs, without pins, without placards." TYBOB members will turn their backs on the presidential motorcade to symbolize what they see as Bush turning his back on Iraq, the international community, the economy, the environment and schools.
Buttar said there will be "multiple actions all over the city," and "several thousand (people involved) at a minimum, but denied the existence of any kind of "grand organization."
However, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and the International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition were named as major players in the protests.
While these groups have been recognized for their large, noticeable protests over the years, they have also been accused of anti-American activity, and their leadership includes unapologetic sympathizers of regimes and political entities that are considered enemies of the United States.
Ramsey Clark is the answer
The International ANSWER Coalition is directed by Ramsey Clark, who rose to fame as U.S. attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, but since then has publicly defended radical regimes around the world and offered legal assistance to some of the world's most notorious and reviled figures.
Clark is currently part of the legal defense team for ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He also defended former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosovic in the International Criminal Court when Milosovic was charged with ethnic cleansing, and according to a November 2002 World Net Daily article, represented a Rwandan pastor who had been charged with participating in the genocide of Tutsi civilians.
In 1986, Clark reportedly defended the Palestine Liberation Organization in a lawsuit brought by the family of American Leon Klinghoffer, the tourist who was killed by PLO terrorists in the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship.
According to the Capital Research Center, Clark also founded the International Action Center (IAC), a spin-off of the Workers World Party (WWP), and has served as the official spokesman for the WWP since the early 1990s when he led the group's National Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East.
The Workers World Party, which describes itself as a "revolutionary socialist" political party in the United States, was founded in 1959, the same year Fidel Castro rose to power in Cuba.
The WWP, according to the World Net Daily article, defended the Chinese communist government's use of tanks in its bloody suppression of pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Articles in Workers World, the WWP newspaper, blamed the students for "violent attacks on the soldiers," insisting the "events were a battle," and not, as many media organizations in the West characterized it, "a massacre."
While claiming to support workers' rights, the WWP defended the Soviet suppression of worker rebellions in Hungary in the 1950s, Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and Poland in the early 1980s, according to Politics1. The WWP also reportedly supported the 1991 KGB coup against then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.
In May 2001, FBI Director Louis Freeh labeled the WWP a "domestic terrorist group" in a statement to several U.S. Senate committees. "Anarchists and extremist socialist groups ... such as the Workers World Party have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States," Freeh said at the time.
"""""""""Birds of a Feather""""""""""
Clark is not the only link between International ANSWER and the International Action Center. The International ANSWER steering committee includes members of IAC and the two groups share office space at 39 West 14th Street in New York City, along with a long list of left-wing, anti-war activist groups, according to an April 2004 report by the Capital Research Center and a number of other reports.
"Basically, ANSWER is dominated by the IAC, which is largely a front for the Workers World Party ..." said Stephen Zunes, chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, in a 2003 report in the Mercury News.
In a statement on the Workers Work Party website, the group claims that its "anti-war and anti-racist movements" are part of a socialist vision. It advertises the International Action Center's inaugural protest and has a phone number for information about transportation.
According to Politics1, the WWP also currently or in the past has sponsored or directed groups like the All People's Congress, the Nicaragua Network, the Alliance for Global Justice, Pastors for Peace, the Korean Truth Commission, the Movement for a People's Assembly, the National People's Campaign, the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the U.S. Invasion of Panama and the Campaign to Stop Settlements in Occupied Palestine.
Politics1 data indicates that some of these groups also have members on the International ANSWER steering committee and work out of the New York City building on West 14th Street. Other groups claiming the same address are Millions for Mumia, the People's Video Network, VoteNoWar.org, VoteToImpeach.org, and the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five.
Sympathies for North Korean dictator
Brian Becker, national coordinator for International ANSWER and organizer of a number of anti-Bush anti-war rallies, is a supporter of North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong Il. According to Becker's own statements, he has spent considerable time in North Korea advocating for the reunification of the Korean peninsula and denouncing U.S. troop presence in the Demilitarized Zone.
Although President Bush included North Korea in his famous "Axis of Evil" speech and Kim's policies are said by some in the Bush administration to be responsible for the starvation and death of approximately 2 million North Koreans, Becker claimed in an interview in Pyongyang in March 2002 that it was the U.S. that had carried out a campaign of genocide against the North Korean people.
A 2003 National Review report revealed that Becker, in concert with the Workers World Party, was an aggressive supporter of the former Soviet Union and opponent of what Becker labeled "U.S. imperialism." He claimed the Soviets "sent invaluable aid to Vietnam, Cuba, the African National Congress in South Africa, and other national-liberation movements."
In support of Castro and the Sandinistas
United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), an "umbrella group" of over 100 left wing groups, including the Young Communist League, Communist Party USA, and various state communist parties, will also be involved in the Jan. 20 protests. The background of the UFPJ leadership is similar to that of International ANSWER.
Leslie Cagan, the national coordinator for UFPJ, is a known supporter of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and in her time as director of the Cuba Information Project, defended Cuba against what she called the "brutality and power of the U.S. government," according to a February 2003 FrontPage Magazine report.
According to this report, Cagan in the late 1960s and early 1970s was allied with the Venceremos Brigades, a rebel group organized by Castro's intelligence agency, which trained "brigadistas" in guerilla warfare tactics.
In the mid 1980s, Cagan advocated the cause of the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua as coordinator of the National Mobilization for Justice and Peace in Central America. A FrontPage Magazine report claimed that Cagan led marches of up to 75,000 people against U.S. aid to the Contras who opposed the Sandinista government.
Code Pink, another prominent counter-inaugural group which falls under the umbrella of UFPJ, includes prominent anti-capitalists like Medea Benjamin, who played a key organizing role in the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization riots, according to a website for Global Exchange, another activist group headed by Benjamin. The riots in Seattle caused millions of dollars in property damage, according to numerous news reports.
Benjamin also served as project coordinator for the Institute for Food and Development Policy, which reportedly sent aid to the Sandinistas. Benjamin claimed in her book, "I, Senator" that she "fought Ronald Reagan's illegal and immoral war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua."
In a 2001 San Francisco Chronicle article, Benjamin was asked about protestors sympathizing with so-called enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the communist Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she said.
In another Chronicle report, Benjamin was asked to compare communist Cuba, which she had visited in the 1980s, with the United States. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said of Cuba.
Who is Funding These Groups?
Observers of the anti-war movement have speculated about the way these organizations, International ANSWER in particular, are funded. According to the Capital Research Center, the groups are sponsored by non-profit, tax exempt groups. Individuals or organizations may make tax-deductible contributions to the 501(c)3 non-profit, which then transfers funds to the activist groups.
Tracing the funds, however, is "all but impossible," according to the CRC.
Contributions to International ANSWER or the International Action Center may be made through the People's Rights Fund, yet another group sharing the New York City address and categorized as a 501(c)3 nonprofit "charity."
When Shahid Buttar, the Washington, D.C., lawyer, was asked at the Jan 12 news conference how the counter-inaugural events would be funded, she stressed the unimportance of money, calling the efforts the "people's uprising."
Macdonald mentioned that a lot of donations came through the groups' websites, but named UFPJ as one of the "big, overarching groups." UFPJ contributed $1,500 for the protests, which Macdonald described as "our biggest funding source."
He emphasized that there hasn't been much funding otherwise. "We're doing this for free," using "resources of the people." Macdonald said those involved are "willing to be transparent."
Last edited:
How'd you know about my long history of sympathizing with North Korea and Cuba? Also correct that I look to Ramsey Clark for 'guidance.'
Yep, that's my 'cause' all right.
Wayne,
Back to the point of the thread, steering back away from your rambling non-sequitur of a post.
Do you think all those countries listed, that have left Iraq(or will be soon), cut and ran?
Back to the point of the thread, steering back away from your rambling non-sequitur of a post.
Do you think all those countries listed, that have left Iraq(or will be soon), cut and ran?
I think they are having reductions not complete pullouts to pacify the leftwing protestors in their respective countries Matt.
--and I owe you an apologie for lumping you in with the code pink crowd as I know that is far from the truth--some times I get to upset about pandering to these protestors as IMHO they fit into 2 catagories --they are politically motived--or they think it makes up for lack of courage that the ones they are protesting had(troops--not politicians)
These left wing sites can spin their agendas any way they want but when it comes down to simple issue of --if their proposals makes our enemies :00hour chances are I will be against it.
--and I owe you an apologie for lumping you in with the code pink crowd as I know that is far from the truth--some times I get to upset about pandering to these protestors as IMHO they fit into 2 catagories --they are politically motived--or they think it makes up for lack of courage that the ones they are protesting had(troops--not politicians)
These left wing sites can spin their agendas any way they want but when it comes down to simple issue of --if their proposals makes our enemies :00hour chances are I will be against it.
Copy / pasted from who knows where -
July 27, 2006
Cut-and-run nation
Posted 1:06 pm | Printer Friendly | Spotlight
There are a handful of interesting national polls out today from a variety of news outlets, including NPR and NBC/Wall Street Journal, but I think Greg Sargent found the most important polling numbers of the day from the new CBS/New York Times poll. As Greg noted, it inexplicably didn?t make it into the Times? article on the poll results, but the questions regarding Iraq and the future of the war are nevertheless startling.
Among the key points:
Do you think the United States should or shouldn?t set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq? Should: 56 Should not: 40
Do you think it is worth the loss of life and other costs for the United States to remain in Iraq until there?s a stable democracy there, or is it not worth the loss of life and other costs, or are you unsure? Worth it: 25 Not worth it: 42 Unsure: 32
How do you think the war with Iraq is affecting the United States? image in the world? Is the war making the U.S. image in the world better, making it worse, or is the war having no effect on the U.S. image in the world? Better: 10 Worse: 72 No effect: 12
Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq? Republican: 36 Democrat: 42
After all the ?cut and run? and ?retreat and defeat? smears, all the talk about ?waving the white flag,? and all the GOP arguments about the merit in ?staying the course,? a majority of the country still thinks Dems are right and Republicans are wrong about the war.
Rumor has it that the GOP is anxious to use the 2006 elections to talk about which party is more reliable on national security and foreign policy. If Dems run away from the issue, with the public already supporting the party?s position on Iraq, they?re missing a painfully obvious opportunity.
14 Comments?
1.
Whether it?s Iraq or Global Warming, the Republican?ts have the same Thelma and Louise solution. They are going to keep going in the same direction and floor it?
? and soar gracefully over the edge into the Grand Canyon.
I think it is kind of sad that still 36% of Americans think the Republican?ts can make the right decisions about Iraq after four years of doing it all wrong.
Comment by Lance ? 7/27/2006 @ 1:12 pm
2.
Just goes to show how pathetic the Democratic Party has become. . . a majority of the country supports their ideas, yet still rejects them outright at the voting booth. That?s oversimplifying the situation (I mean, did Boy George ever really get elected?), but the fact that we can even have this discussion is absurd.
Comment by eadie ? 7/27/2006 @ 1:14 pm
3.
I?m suprised that I haven?t heard anybody say this, turning the withdrawal=dishonor argument on its head. Call it the
?leave no man behind? message, if you will:
When our soldiers are sent in harm?s way, the promise made to them is that we will remember and respect their sacrifices, that we won?t send them into danger and then turn our back on them. But this is exactly what is happening: President Bush got us in this war, and now that it?s turned ugly, he?s committed to ?stay the course?? not to win a military victory, but to protect the honor of the President.
It goes without saying that you ?leave no man behind.? The current policy, in effect, is exactly the opposite of that: we have 130,000 soldiers left behind in Iraq, because the president can?t stand up to the political fire that will focus on him if he goes back to get them out.
Comment by Eric ? 7/27/2006 @ 1:31 pm
4.
Eric has it exactly right. This is about honor, not the honor of our nation, but the honor of GWB. If he had cared about the honor of our country, he would not have violated the public trust by lying to get us into a war. He has single-handedly destroyed our nation?s horor. It is clear the GWB had a grudge because of the failed assassination attempt on GHWB and that grudge was manipulated by certain interests to produce a very profitable war for those same interests.
Comment by Gracious ? 7/27/2006 @ 2:16 pm
5.
Do you think it is worth the loss of life and other costs for the United States to remain in Iraq until there?s a stable democracy there, or is it not worth the loss of life and other costs, or are you unsure? Worth it: 25 Not worth it: 42 Unsure: 32 - from the post
That?s a lot of handwringers in the Unsure column. Or ?my country right or wrong?er?s trying to decipher the smell emanating from the brain fart hovering around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and realizing their gov?t is full of beans and stinky brain farts is ALL they?re ever going to get from ShrubCo.
Somebody light a match.
Comment by burro ? 7/27/2006 @ 2:26 pm
6.
Yes, we are indeed ?missing a painfully obvious opportunity?, especially the overpaid establishment Democratic slobs in the House and Senate. Guess they haven?t yet had what they consider to be overwhelmingly conclusive focus-group results.
You don?t need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows.
- Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
Comment by Ed Stephan ? 7/27/2006 @ 2:58 pm
7.
Funny, I wonder if most Americans realize that when the GOP sneeringly use that ?cut and run? phrase, that these same GOP politicians are sneering at average voters as well. If I though congressmen were sneering at me and my beliefs I wouldn?t vote for them.
Comment by ET ? 7/27/2006 @ 3:34 pm
8.
Potential responces to the poll numbers from the right:
1. Bush needs to improve the message as to why we need to stay in Iraq.
2. The pollsters only called people who are registered Democrats.
3..The questions are poorly worded.
4. CBS/New York Times. What else do we have to say? Bunch of America-hating, terrorist-loving liberals
5. The respondents were distracted by their tv?s, or were obviously drunk.
Comment by 2Manchu ? 7/27/2006 @ 3:40 pm
9.
Gracious at #4?I don?t even give him ?credit? for having a grudge because of the assassination attempt on GHWB. I think Cheney was able to exploit W?s need to surpass his daddy. A lot of folks on the right thought it was a mistake not to go all the way to Baghdad in ?91 and resented Powell and GHWB for it. I think lil W wanted to show dad he was a bigger man and ?finish the job.? I guess I don?t think GWB has any kind of honor.
Comment by Sagacity ? 7/27/2006 @ 3:58 pm
10.
Sagacity: I agree. GWB actually has no honor, but he has false pride which is a very dangerous quality in a leader. I also agree that he was going to show Daddy how it is done, and that he was manipulated by the people who did not like his father?s ?cut and run? decision.
But it is his false pride that will not allow him to admit failure, and that?s too bad. Because of that particular quality in Bush I am afraid we will have many more dead people before this is over.
Comment by Gracious ? 7/27/2006 @ 4:25 pm
11.
Someone with the resources should start showing up outside Bush appearances witha parrot trained to constantly repeat ?Stay the course!? on cue.
Comment by Jim S ? 7/27/2006 @ 10:56 pm
12.
Bad policy and bad action leave no good options. There is no right way to end this.
We can ask this question of America about any number of issues or even its reason for existence: To what end?
No matter what our noble mission, if the end product is a seriously diminished habitat on earth for all creatures, then we will have utterly failed the most basic test ? living on earth like we were the first and not the last generation to inhabit the planet. Al Gore had it right, the central organizing principle has to be the earth and how man can become a leaver instead of a taker. If we gauge our freedoms by how much we can take then we are certainly on the wrong path. And that just about describes how we measure success.
In the end of our journey in Iraq, all that will matter is how and who gets the oil out.
Comment by lou ? 7/28/2006 @ 7:49 am
13.
?In the end of our journey in Iraq, all that will matter is how and who gets the oil out.? - lou
I?d love to just leave it where it is. We can live on the Earth comfortably because all this carbon is sequestered deep underground. Boy George II and his Texas Mafia want to dig or drill it all up and burn it. They are literally poisoning our air simply to get more grotesquely rich.
Comment by Lance ? 7/28/2006 @ 9:57 am
July 27, 2006
Cut-and-run nation
Posted 1:06 pm | Printer Friendly | Spotlight
There are a handful of interesting national polls out today from a variety of news outlets, including NPR and NBC/Wall Street Journal, but I think Greg Sargent found the most important polling numbers of the day from the new CBS/New York Times poll. As Greg noted, it inexplicably didn?t make it into the Times? article on the poll results, but the questions regarding Iraq and the future of the war are nevertheless startling.
Among the key points:
Do you think the United States should or shouldn?t set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq? Should: 56 Should not: 40
Do you think it is worth the loss of life and other costs for the United States to remain in Iraq until there?s a stable democracy there, or is it not worth the loss of life and other costs, or are you unsure? Worth it: 25 Not worth it: 42 Unsure: 32
How do you think the war with Iraq is affecting the United States? image in the world? Is the war making the U.S. image in the world better, making it worse, or is the war having no effect on the U.S. image in the world? Better: 10 Worse: 72 No effect: 12
Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq? Republican: 36 Democrat: 42
After all the ?cut and run? and ?retreat and defeat? smears, all the talk about ?waving the white flag,? and all the GOP arguments about the merit in ?staying the course,? a majority of the country still thinks Dems are right and Republicans are wrong about the war.
Rumor has it that the GOP is anxious to use the 2006 elections to talk about which party is more reliable on national security and foreign policy. If Dems run away from the issue, with the public already supporting the party?s position on Iraq, they?re missing a painfully obvious opportunity.
14 Comments?
1.
Whether it?s Iraq or Global Warming, the Republican?ts have the same Thelma and Louise solution. They are going to keep going in the same direction and floor it?
? and soar gracefully over the edge into the Grand Canyon.
I think it is kind of sad that still 36% of Americans think the Republican?ts can make the right decisions about Iraq after four years of doing it all wrong.
Comment by Lance ? 7/27/2006 @ 1:12 pm
2.
Just goes to show how pathetic the Democratic Party has become. . . a majority of the country supports their ideas, yet still rejects them outright at the voting booth. That?s oversimplifying the situation (I mean, did Boy George ever really get elected?), but the fact that we can even have this discussion is absurd.
Comment by eadie ? 7/27/2006 @ 1:14 pm
3.
I?m suprised that I haven?t heard anybody say this, turning the withdrawal=dishonor argument on its head. Call it the
?leave no man behind? message, if you will:
When our soldiers are sent in harm?s way, the promise made to them is that we will remember and respect their sacrifices, that we won?t send them into danger and then turn our back on them. But this is exactly what is happening: President Bush got us in this war, and now that it?s turned ugly, he?s committed to ?stay the course?? not to win a military victory, but to protect the honor of the President.
It goes without saying that you ?leave no man behind.? The current policy, in effect, is exactly the opposite of that: we have 130,000 soldiers left behind in Iraq, because the president can?t stand up to the political fire that will focus on him if he goes back to get them out.
Comment by Eric ? 7/27/2006 @ 1:31 pm
4.
Eric has it exactly right. This is about honor, not the honor of our nation, but the honor of GWB. If he had cared about the honor of our country, he would not have violated the public trust by lying to get us into a war. He has single-handedly destroyed our nation?s horor. It is clear the GWB had a grudge because of the failed assassination attempt on GHWB and that grudge was manipulated by certain interests to produce a very profitable war for those same interests.
Comment by Gracious ? 7/27/2006 @ 2:16 pm
5.
Do you think it is worth the loss of life and other costs for the United States to remain in Iraq until there?s a stable democracy there, or is it not worth the loss of life and other costs, or are you unsure? Worth it: 25 Not worth it: 42 Unsure: 32 - from the post
That?s a lot of handwringers in the Unsure column. Or ?my country right or wrong?er?s trying to decipher the smell emanating from the brain fart hovering around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and realizing their gov?t is full of beans and stinky brain farts is ALL they?re ever going to get from ShrubCo.
Somebody light a match.
Comment by burro ? 7/27/2006 @ 2:26 pm
6.
Yes, we are indeed ?missing a painfully obvious opportunity?, especially the overpaid establishment Democratic slobs in the House and Senate. Guess they haven?t yet had what they consider to be overwhelmingly conclusive focus-group results.
You don?t need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows.
- Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
Comment by Ed Stephan ? 7/27/2006 @ 2:58 pm
7.
Funny, I wonder if most Americans realize that when the GOP sneeringly use that ?cut and run? phrase, that these same GOP politicians are sneering at average voters as well. If I though congressmen were sneering at me and my beliefs I wouldn?t vote for them.
Comment by ET ? 7/27/2006 @ 3:34 pm
8.
Potential responces to the poll numbers from the right:
1. Bush needs to improve the message as to why we need to stay in Iraq.
2. The pollsters only called people who are registered Democrats.
3..The questions are poorly worded.
4. CBS/New York Times. What else do we have to say? Bunch of America-hating, terrorist-loving liberals
5. The respondents were distracted by their tv?s, or were obviously drunk.
Comment by 2Manchu ? 7/27/2006 @ 3:40 pm
9.
Gracious at #4?I don?t even give him ?credit? for having a grudge because of the assassination attempt on GHWB. I think Cheney was able to exploit W?s need to surpass his daddy. A lot of folks on the right thought it was a mistake not to go all the way to Baghdad in ?91 and resented Powell and GHWB for it. I think lil W wanted to show dad he was a bigger man and ?finish the job.? I guess I don?t think GWB has any kind of honor.
Comment by Sagacity ? 7/27/2006 @ 3:58 pm
10.
Sagacity: I agree. GWB actually has no honor, but he has false pride which is a very dangerous quality in a leader. I also agree that he was going to show Daddy how it is done, and that he was manipulated by the people who did not like his father?s ?cut and run? decision.
But it is his false pride that will not allow him to admit failure, and that?s too bad. Because of that particular quality in Bush I am afraid we will have many more dead people before this is over.
Comment by Gracious ? 7/27/2006 @ 4:25 pm
11.
Someone with the resources should start showing up outside Bush appearances witha parrot trained to constantly repeat ?Stay the course!? on cue.
Comment by Jim S ? 7/27/2006 @ 10:56 pm
12.
Bad policy and bad action leave no good options. There is no right way to end this.
We can ask this question of America about any number of issues or even its reason for existence: To what end?
No matter what our noble mission, if the end product is a seriously diminished habitat on earth for all creatures, then we will have utterly failed the most basic test ? living on earth like we were the first and not the last generation to inhabit the planet. Al Gore had it right, the central organizing principle has to be the earth and how man can become a leaver instead of a taker. If we gauge our freedoms by how much we can take then we are certainly on the wrong path. And that just about describes how we measure success.
In the end of our journey in Iraq, all that will matter is how and who gets the oil out.
Comment by lou ? 7/28/2006 @ 7:49 am
13.
?In the end of our journey in Iraq, all that will matter is how and who gets the oil out.? - lou
I?d love to just leave it where it is. We can live on the Earth comfortably because all this carbon is sequestered deep underground. Boy George II and his Texas Mafia want to dig or drill it all up and burn it. They are literally poisoning our air simply to get more grotesquely rich.
Comment by Lance ? 7/28/2006 @ 9:57 am
"Either your with us or your with the terrorists."
G.W. Bush
Britain has now officially become a terrorist nation. Lets nuke em.
Eddie
G.W. Bush
Britain has now officially become a terrorist nation. Lets nuke em.
Eddie
Ed,
You're too quick.
Give me a few days head start so I have a chance at this kind of witty reply.
You're too quick.
Give me a few days head start so I have a chance at this kind of witty reply.
Buddy:
Ready, set, go. How things are going as well as can be expected at this time. Keep my number and email.
Eddie
Ready, set, go. How things are going as well as can be expected at this time. Keep my number and email.
Eddie
Kosar: Makes reasonable post asking a question conservatives don't want to address realistically.
Dogs: Matt, here's how you can donate to Codepink.
And so it goes...
Dogs: Matt, here's how you can donate to Codepink.
And so it goes...
