68% Want Troops to Stay in Iraq a Year or More
November 20th, 2007 at 01:36am Mark Noonan
I can write headlines, too - the headline of this Rasmussen Survey puts it that 61% want the US to withdraw from Iraq within a year. But if you look at the polling data, what you’ve got is 26% saying withdraw immediately, 33% saying stay indefinitely, and 35% say withdraw by a year from now - so, it can justly be said that 61% want us out in a year, but also that 68% want us to stay at least a year.
More seriosly, the poll - depending on how correct it is in demographics, and it is a poll of adults rather than the more accurate polls of registered or likely voters - shows that the middle ground is to the right of the Democrats. People don’t want to cut and run - a moderate position on Iraq is the position that we should withdraw as soon as possible, hopefully within a year…but this doesn’t mean that people are fool enough to fall for the leftwing propaganda about how we’ve got to get out right now, consequences to the wind.
This is also a good chance to instruct our lefty friends - forlorn as the effort might be - that when you get a poll result that says “61% want the US out of Iraq”, it has to be measured carefully. Of the 61% in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq, the number who actually agree with the position of the left is 26% - a smaller number than the people who agree with those of us siding with the President on the issue. Iraq, you see, isn’t this cut-and-dried thing the people on the left have talked themselves into believing. For the left, Iraq is an illegal war and a complete disaster than the only rational course of action is immediate or very quick withdrawal - it isn’t like that at all, and the American people know it.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
43 Comments
1. dotkash.com » 68% W&hellip | November 20th, 2007 at 1:54 am
[...] markharrison wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI can write headlines, too - the headline of this Rasmussen Survey puts it that 61% want the US to withdraw from Iraq within a year. But if you look at the polling data, what you’ve got is 26% saying withdraw immediately, … [...]
2. french student | November 20th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Mark
Your analysis is correct - if, of course, the middle answer is actually worded “get the troops home exactly a year from now” or something amongst these lines.
If the answer is worded “within a year”, the desired return date of the troops is between now and a year from now. And that, Mark, is less than a year from now, and does not count for “a year or more”, with the exception of november 20th, 2008.
It is also my understanding of the english language that “by a year from now” is akin to “within a year” in that the day 365 days after the statement is made, the action must be over.
Nice try on recycling the arguments from your posters, too bad you had to mislead your readers as to the wording of the poll answers to do it.
3. jgwilk | November 20th, 2007 at 6:05 am
and 100% of the population are wondering why cheerleaders such as yourself haven’t signed up yet for your tour ( or under the current administration’s policy, four consecutive tours) of iraq?
4. Ryan | November 20th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Do you supoer firefighters? Why aren’t you one? You suport Police coverage? BEtter go sign up now!
YOu lost the argument by bringing out the ‘Chickenhawk’ - game over.
5. Retired Spook | November 20th, 2007 at 7:53 am
jgwilk,
OT, but still waiting for your answer about what constitutes “erring on the side of caution”.
6. navydad | November 20th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Mark,
Kooks such as Ryan are under the influence of BDS and cannot think through the fog of absurdity.
Ryan, et al. Do you believe anyone that supports this war must be an enlisted person? If so, does my Son’s service negate my non-enlisted status, or not?
This twisted, liberal mentallity is the very reason the left should never be in control of our government…..wait a second. The Dems are in control. WOW, for a second there, I forgot…LOL! Shows how ineffective they truly are. 0-40 against GWB.
I’d say game, set and match to GWB….Ryan!
7. neocon | November 20th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Spook,
He doesn’t know what “erring on the side of caution” means. He most likely picked that up on another site, thought it sounded good and regurgitated it here.
And that pretty much sums up the left. Negative talking points without substance. In fact, I heard yesterday on pMSNBC and Hardass, this activist actually saying that “the insurgency was fueling the civil war and we need to get out now.” Do they not follow current events???
8. Retired Spook | November 20th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Navydad, I think apologies are in order. Ryan is one of the good guys; you just misread his post. Read jgwilk’s post immediately before Ryan’s, and then it makes sense.
Do they not follow current events???
Neocon, I think they think they do, but, in reality, they only follow the current events that dovetail with their worldview. Anything else just registers a big “DOES NOT COMPUTE” signal to their brains.
9. Joe | November 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am
“so, it can justly be said that 61% want us out in a year, but also that 68% want us to stay at least a year”
Huh? That doesn’t add up to 100%.
“But if you look at the polling data, what you’ve got is 26% saying withdraw immediately, 33% saying stay indefinitely, and 35% say withdraw by a year from now”
So 61% say withdraw either immediately or “by a year from now”. Isn’t what what the Democrats were trying to pass? Get the troops home by the end of next year?
Yes, there are some people that say immediate withdrawal, but within a year most is more likely since it will take that long to get everyone and everything out.
So… if we went with the 61% of people that want out within a year, we better start making plans NOW.
10. DougH | November 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am
french student
Maybe you can also explain what people meant n Nov 2006 the majority said troops home within in a year or
Maybe you can also explain what people meant n Nov 2005 the majority said troops home within in a year or
Maybe you can also explain what people meant n Nov 2004 the majority said troops home within in a year
Or maybe your just anti-war and just want to keep saying the majority of people want the troops brought home now…
Most people and I include myself, would like to see the troops home asap but as long as they are making progress I am willing to give Bush more time.
According to what I’ve read in newspapers, if things continue to progress in Iraq, then a majority of the troops will be home by next August.
All I see the Democrats in Congress doing is appeasing the anti-war supporters and trying to postion themselves for what is the inevitable.
Even if things turn worse in Iraq, the US wil start bringing troops back by March 2008.
jgwilk,
You do realize that most of the troops in Iraq signed up over the past 3 years, knowing they would be going to Iraq…..
11. SteaM | November 20th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Hey, thanks for telling us all what we already know. The majority of the people in this country want us out of Iraq. Be it now or a year from now.
Now go back to acting like Bush gives a crap what the majority of us think.
And keep thinking that this war is about terrorism and not really a resource war.
12. eric | November 20th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Steam,
How many acts of terrorism have occurred worldwide since 9/11? (I’m sure you don’t know because it seems that you don’t believe terrorism exists.) The answer: 10,032 (source: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/).
How many in the U.S. since 9/11?
13. TiredofLibBullShit | November 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
“It is also my understanding of the english language …..”
This from an individual whose language puts adjectives AFTER the noun - has a committee on the French language, and has no equivalents to many words of other languages…How backwards and unadaptable can they be? Simple-minided is the most logical answer.
frenchy, you do not understand our language with its nuances and differences of interpretations to questions very much, as proof of your posts.
14. Joe | November 20th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
eric, how many acts of terrorism in the US between 1993 an 2001? Claiming that “we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is a foolish argument and doesn’t mean anything.
Don’t tell me your next post is going to claim that “we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. And you might as well skip the “they will just follow us home” aregument. Also, avoid the “our malls won’t be safe” argument as well.
15. eric | November 20th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Joe,
Feb. 26, 1993 - WTC
Apr. 19, 1995 - Ok City
June 25, 1996 - Khobar Towers (Saudia Arabia)
July 27, 1996 - Olympics (Atlanta)
Aug. 7, 1998 - U.S. Embassies (Kenya & Tanzania)
Oct. 2, 2000 - U.S.S. Cole (Yemen)
Foolish argument? It is only foolish if you suffer from a severe case of BDS and want to believe that terrorism does not exist.
You don’t want to hear those arguments because you don’t have any answers. If you want to debate, debate. Don’t try to skew the rules so you can avoid having to challenge yourself intellectually.
16. Joe | November 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I believe your arguement was:
“How many in the U.S. since 9/11?”
To the best of my knowledge, OK City and Atlanta had nothing to do with the Middle East and the people everyone says we are fighting over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.
Also, I don’t know what school you went to, but I am pretty sure Sudi Arabia, Kenya and Yemen are not IN the U.S.
The argument made by you and others is that THE U.S. has not been attacked since 2001.
Yep… foolish argument.
17. eric | November 20th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Any U.S. embassy, regardless of location is considered U.S. soil. The other attacks were acts of terrorism against our soldiers (which I consider an attack against the U.S. - regardless of location).
Yes, the Ok city and Atlanta bombings had nothing to do with the Middle East. However, if the U.S. was as vigilant against terrorism as it is now, these attacks may have been prevented.
My level of education is not necessarily relevant, but I have a BSME and JD.
Again, it is only a foolish argument, if you do not believe in the existence of terrorism.
18. anarchist | November 20th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
eric, the green zone in Iraq get attacked like multiple times a week. The green zone is technically US soil.
Global terrorism has risen about 9000%(that’s not a typo) since the invasion of Iraq according to the National Counter Terrorism Center, the agency Bush created to gather data on these sorts of things, after a pretty constant rate for over 20 years.
A very large amount of these terror attacks are based from Iraq, after almost 10 years of Iraq having nothing to do with terrorism against the US.
Some people seem to think we get attacked only because we’re free, and occupation is the only cure. But Bush’s massive expansion of government power and his soft assault on civil liberties while at the same time occupying 2 new countries has actually been proceeded by more terrorism.
19. eric | November 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Anarchist,
This is not a personal attack, but I honestly do not know how to respond. First, you stated that we get attacked in Iraq mulitple times a week. Then, you stated that Iraq has had nothing to do with terrorism for almost ten years. This is a direct contradiction.
Also, your last sentence makes no sense. “But Bush’s massive expansion of government power and his soft assault on civil liberties while at the same time occupying 2 new countries has actually been proceeded by more terrorism.” What do you mean by “proceeded by more terrorism.” In my mind, proceed means to go forward. Please explain.
20. SteaM | November 20th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I do believe in the existance of terrorism. When we attacked Iraq and occupied their soveriegn nation they had nothing to do with Al Quada. Nor were they fans of them. Neither were they harboring them.
Eric, it’s the OIL.
Iran has plenty of it too. Have you heard about them lately by chance? Maybe heard word that we want to attack them?
The countries have State run oil companies. Our oil companies are having troulbles keeping the current level of production at an affordable cost the consumer. So of course they are setting their eyes on the middle east where they have oil.
Terrorism and Islamic/Christian tenstions are just another piece to this puzzle. And just as much a part of it as oil.
I personally feel really terrible everytime I fill my gas tank and feel that I have no other option. Finding this alternative option is where dems and repubs should find a bipartisan project. Why not start exporting alternative fuel based products and become the forerunner in this market?
I’m just thinking proactive and realistically.
Back to you.
21. Concerned Citizen | November 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Oh, my God! You people cannot really be stupid enough to believe that this is about oil. That is the most moronic argument that exists in regards to the resumption of hostilities with Iraq.
If we wanted the oil why not just secure the souther part of Iraq (where the oil and the infrastructure are locacted). Why aren’t our oil prices at $20/barrel if we are stealing all of Iraqs oil?
You do understand that the United States of Americas sits on the LARGEST known oil reserves in the world, right? We sit on about 70% of the known oil resources in the world. We do not need to go invade nations to get oil, we could just invade Colorado, Utah, Kansas, Alaska, Wyoming, etc..
The ONLY reason our oil companies are having problems with production is because environmental lobbiest will not let drill and have not let us build a refinery in over 30 years.
As for alternative fuel sources, how about nuclear?
Nope can’t build those.
Wind energy?
Sure as long as Ted Kennedy cannot see the fans, he voted expansion of wind energy down twice.
Ethanol?
Horribly inefficent, reduces fuel effeciency of existing vehicles, cost more energy to grow, distil and refine than it returns as burnable fuel, massive production would skyrocket consumable prices.
Hydrogen?
Great idea, horrible in practice. Doesn’t occur naturally on this planet. Has to be extracted from hydrocarbons or water which takes massive amount of energy. Returns less that 75% of the energy required to manufacture.
Biodiesel?
Hmm… Maybe. This is about the only practical one. Made from stuff that would be thrown away. Can convert standard diesel with little or no effort. Ok, there is one out of the five. Too bad that only one out of twenty cars on the road are desiel.
22. Joe | November 20th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
eric,
re-read Anarchist’s post. How do you figure that is a contradiction?
I believe their point was that before the invasion, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist attacks. Now, after the invasion the green zone is getting attacked daily.
Not sure how that is a contradiction.
You still haven’t addressed the fact that you and many others have claimed that “The US hasn’t been attacked since 9/11″. Yes, embassies are considered US soil, but that wasn’t your initial question. Just to quote your questions again… “How many in the U.S. since 9/11?” I claim that there were no attacks in the U.S. from 1993-2001. So your argument doesn’t mean much.
You throw in OK City and Atlanta. I shot that down, but you say they may have been thwarted. Sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand… unless of course, you are claiming that us invading Iraq has stopped other OK City–type attacks on the US. Are you claiming that?
Ask those affected by the London bombings how well fighting over there so they don’t have to fight them in their local area went.
This is not a personal attack, just pointing out that the “We haven’t been attacked since 2001” is a foolish argument.
23. Parker | November 20th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Iran has plenty of it too. Have you heard about them lately by chance? Maybe heard word that we want to attack them?
Maybe heard word that they are developing nuclear capability and directly threatening the U.S. and Israel?
I’m no fan of the current Iraq situation, but the situation in Iran has little, if anything to do with oil and must be dealt with soon.
3,000 centrifuges can’t be all wrong.
24. Retired Spook | November 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Hydrogen? Great idea, horrible in practice. Doesn’t occur naturally on this planet. Has to be extracted from hydrocarbons or water which takes massive amount of energy. Returns less that 75% of the energy required to manufacture.
Actually, Concerned Citizen, there may be some good news on that front.
I smell an investment opportunity.
25. Joe | November 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Parker, when did Iran directly threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons?
They are still claiming that it is strictly for Nuclear ENERGY and not for nuclear weapons.
Why can’t we have the IAEA keep an eye on this? It has been said that Iran is cooperating with them.
Why are you people so eager to bomb them???
26. SteaM | November 20th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Iran and Iraq are number two and three in the world in regards to the amount of oil they have.
The US has oil in different forms but the oil that was cheap and easy to produce hit a peak and began to decline in the 70’s.
Saudi’s have a bunch of oil. Some suspect they have peaked as well.
What I am trying to say here is that we peaked in the 70’s. Any oil we have now going to get very expensive to find and get out of the ground. Oil is not renewable. It will run out. Many other countries have peaked as well. Some are suspect to have peaked but it’s hard to tell since they fudge their oil reserve numbers for OPEC quota reasons.
So what do we do when it becomes too expensive to get to? Get it from somewhere that it’s plentiful and easy to get to. Like the middle east.
And yes, you mentioned that Iran don’t like Isreal. I am not ignorant to all of this. I mentioned above that terrorism and religious tentions (christians and islam) probably have as much to do with this as oil. It’s a two-part issue.
They don’t hate us for our freedom. We are hungry for cheap resources.
27. Parker | November 20th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
when did Iran directly threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons?
You are correct Joe. Iran hasn’t threatened anyone with nuclear weapons because they don’t have any at this point. Let’s see what happens if they get them.
Do you truly believe that Iran’s nuclear program is primarily for ‘peaceful’ energy production?
Look. The last thing I want to see is a military attack on Iran. Well, the last thing before Iran acquiring nuclear capability.
28. SteaM | November 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
How many nukes does Isreal have?
29. sleepygene | November 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
300
30. Concerned Citizen | November 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Really!? Nice find Spook. I work in the environmental industry and am all about hydrogen as a fuel. I am tired of the global warming deathcry that so many are obsessed with lately. The science just doesn’t support he man made destruction of the planet by carbon emmissions.
But effeciently produced Hydrogen is potentially the best option for reduction of oil dependency, though we will never be able to end oil dependency. Too many things are produced from petrochemicals: lubricants, medicines, plastices, intermediate chemicals, polymers, rubber, etc… The list goes on forever.
Steam, you assessment of the oil industry in the US is way off base. We have oil that is easily obtainable in many areas. We did not reach peak production capacity in the 70’s, we just could not produce it as cheap as the OPEC nations could. We began shutting down our production when oil was under $20/barrel for light sweet crude because it was cheaper to buy foriegn oil.
Just last year a deep well project in the Gulf discovered an oil field that could produce as much as 4 million barrels/day. The shale fields of the mid-west contain more than 3 trillion barrels of oil and a dialy production capacity of almost 7 million barrels. Uncap and refrak the wells in Texas, start drilling in Alaska and the Gulf again like we used to and start harvesting the shale fields and we could produce over 10 million barrels/day.
Build modern refineries so we do not have to ship our oil to foriegn nations to be refined. New refineries can produce more efficeint and cleaner burning fuel.
People need to stop focusing on the feel good bullshit stuff like buying hybrid vehicles, which are more envrionmentally damaging than me driving my wife’s Ford Expedition due to the massive amount of polution caused during their manufacturing. We need to focus on independence from foriegn energy and make our own.
Most of the big energy and oil companies are heavily invested in alternative energy research. They know we are pushing toward cleaner energy sources and they want to be the ones to provide them. We will get there but we are years away from it. In the meantime, our money should be going to American companies, not to terrorist sponsoring or oppressive socialist states.
Also:
How many nukes does Israel have? Not nearly enough. Oh and Israel does not threaten to wipe nations off of the map and sieze warships in international waters. Israel is not supplying the weapons and training to kill American soldiers. Oh, yeah, and Iran has threatened us many times. Threatened to launch missile attacks on our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should we interfere with their nuclear program. Threatened to bring down the Great Satan. Their military chants “Death to America” as a slogan and they partied in the streets after the towers fell.
31. Concerned Citizen | November 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Furthermore, Joe. The IAEA in a report just days ago stated that they have no idea what is occurring with Iran’s nuclear program because Iran is not cooperating.
Saying that they claim it is peaceful is Chamberlain all over again. You know Hitler claimed that he had maps prooving that parts of other countries were really his and claimed that Poland attacked him as well. It doesn’t mean we were any less foolish for believing him because he said it was true. I can walk down the street nake and claim I am invisible, doesn’t make is so.
32. SteaM | November 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The science just doesn’t support he man made destruction of the planet by carbon emmissions.
Dude, that is just not true. That is your opinion. Besides it’s a half-a$$ statement. The planet won’t just destruct because of humans. It might become very uninhabitable or really uncomfortable. But it’s not going to just blow up. Well, not until it gets too close to the sun but that’s like billions of years away.
we will never be able to end oil dependency.
Never say never oh sceptical one. Humans are pretty creative at surviving. How do you think we’ve made it this long?
33. Retired Spook | November 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
You are correct Joe. Iran hasn’t threatened anyone with nuclear weapons because they don’t have any at this point. Let’s see what happens if they get them.
Parker, you may want to wait and see what happens; personally, I’d just as soon not.
Concerned Citizen, I can’t take credit for the hydrogen article. Ricorun emailed it to me last week. It is pretty cool, though.
34. Retired Spook | November 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Dude, that is just not true.
So, dude, are you saying that the science DOES support the man-made destruction of the planet by carbon emissions? Could you explain in a little more detail?
35. Concerned Citizen | November 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Steam. That is most certainly a true statement. Where would you like me to start?
Arctic ice caps shrinking while Antartic ones growing?
Hotter temeratures on average in the 1930s that any time in the last 100 years?
Martian warming?
Carbon-Dioxide not the main greenhouse gas?
Planetary climatology models are horribly inaccurate?
Polar bear populations increasing instead of decreasing?
There are plenty of others, where shall I begin to educate you?
36. Ann | November 20th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Regrettably, staying in Iraq for another year would solve nothing. State-building is a matter of decades, not years. Even Israelis concur, such as here http://samsonblinded.org/blog/iraqs-standard-of-safety.htm
37. Parker | November 20th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Parker, you may want to wait and see what happens; personally, I’d just as soon not.
That was a rhetorical statement. We all know what will happen…
38. neocon | November 20th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Canada is our largest oil supplier and considering the massive oil sands in the country, they could be our only supplier. Mexico is third.
China is now drilling in the Carribean for those vast reserves and ANWAR is still there. So anyone saying that the US doesn’t have other options than the ME for oil is just wrong.
If the US incentivized oil companies to seriously begin transforming our energy foundation from oil to greener energies, it could be achieved in 20 years.
39. Ricorun | November 20th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
neocon: If the US incentivized oil companies to seriously begin transforming our energy foundation from oil to greener energies, it could be achieved in 20 years.
If that’s the case, then why bother with ANWR and oil shale?
This study by Rand estimates that it will take at least 12 years, possibly more, to even begin commercial production. And that assumes someone figures out how to do it. And so far the most promising technology has hit a major snag. Likewise, even if we started drilling in ANWR tomorrow it would take about as long before it could become productive. Drilling in the eastern Gulf? Well, Jeb Bush for one wasn’t a big fan of that.
But I think it’s great that we’re actually starting to talk about solutions! In that spirit, I have a short response for Concerned Citizen as well…
Wind energy?
Sure as long as Ted Kennedy cannot see the fans, he voted expansion of wind energy down twice.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that Romney was a staunch opponent to the Cape wind farm too. It might of interest to note that, there’s “a href=”http://www.humdingerwind.com/windbelt.html”>a new development in wind technology called a wind belt which, if scaled up as anticipated (read the caption below the picture in the bottom left corner of the page) could be a much cheaper, much more efficient replacement for wind turbines.
Ethanol?
Horribly inefficent, reduces fuel effeciency of existing vehicles, cost more energy to grow, distil and refine than it returns as burnable fuel, massive production would skyrocket consumable prices.
I believe you’re talking about simple carbohydrate based ethanol (corn, soy, sugar cane, etc), not cellulosic based ethanol. There are already a handful of commercial sized cellulosic biofuel plants being built, but recently the industry has been attracting A LOT of investment capital from heavy hitters like Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Richard Branson, Vinod Khosla, and Craig Ventor. I don’t think it would be prudent to bet against these guys.
40. Concerned Citizen | November 21st, 2007 at 12:54 am
Ricorun,
Trust me I know Romney was against the wind farm projects as well. So were alot of morons here in Texas when they almost allowed a neighborhood organization to sure TXU for placing a 400 turbine wind farm within eyesight of their community in south Texas.
Texas has become the second largest wind energy producing state, but people bitch when they have to look at the farms.
Wind is a great option. So is solar in some instances, although it is probably the least reliable unless it is in the middle of the desert.
And yes, I was refering to organic ethanol since it is by far the most common. I know that some advances have been made in cellulosic ethanol, but it does not change the fact that it is still an innefficient energy source and reduces the effecieny of normal fuels when used as an additive.
What we need is to begin to construct nuclear plants. With today’s technology they are by far the most efficeint and clean power source we have available. While the waste from them is dangerous, it is released in much, much smaller amounts than other forms of energy.
What we need to stop doing is knee-jerk reactions to stuff like everyone buying freaking hybrids, when they do not even think about the environmental damage those vehicles cause to manufacture and maintain. The are worse than the gas guzzling SUVs that everyone complains about by far. It is just that those are the new fad and everyone thinks they are great, so they must be safe right?
Also, we are many, MANY years away from ending oil dependency. Like I said earlier petrochemicals are used in far to many things for us to stop consuming oil, but we sure could make a dent in purchasing foriegn oil if we would just start using our own.
41. USA | November 21st, 2007 at 1:59 am
It doesn’t really matter what one side thinks if the one side is mentally insane, uneducated or both. (or couldn’t win a debate but still keep their belief system…why?…they’re crazy)
42. Joe | November 21st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Just a bit of OT in case someone is still reading this string of comments…
http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html
“The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments”
Way to support the troops!
43. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Rico,
We’ve been saying that about ANWAR now for fifteen years. Had we began drilling then, we’d have our oil today.
Don’t cha think???