43 Comments

• 1. Some Assembly Required  |  March 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am

  “The tiny minority who see President Bush as evil…..”

  Hilarious, thanks for making my morning…

• 2. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 10:58 am

  Sorry to disappoint, Mark. This poll doesn’t bother me in the slightest. The “home within a year” question is one that has been been appearing for years in the polling. For example, the same Rasmussen polling (from the same page as your source) shows that in August of last year 33% of those polled wanted U.S. forces out of Iraq within a year. That combined with the 30% that wanted us out immediately meant that just seven months ago 63% of Americans wanted us out of Iraq by August of this year. In fact, the numbers have been pretty stable for all three of the options presented which suggests that you have three stable groups.

  One group supports an open-ended occupation. Many of those, if not most, are those, like you and so many others here, that are obsessed with your fears of perceived weakness and defeat as though you were personally at risk. Another group is in favor of withdrawing. This group is the most committed of the consistent majority (over years now) that see the United States invasion of Iraq as a mistake. Finally, there is a group that completes the majority of Americans who have long since concluded that we were wrong to invade, but who feel varying degrees of responsibility under the “pottery barn rule”. Given American’s general sense of decency, this isnt’t really surprising.

  So, contrary to your bogus headline, American public opinion continues to be stable on this issue. The overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of President Bush and the Republican Party’s handling of the Iraq situation. The majority trust Democrats to do a better job of handling the question of what to do in Iraq and the overwhelming majority see the last five years in Iraq as a mistake. No amount of disingenuous headline-writing on your part can make those realities go away. Sorry about that.

• 3. french student  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:02 am

  plus if you want to see polls that do evolve with time…

  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/18/iraq/main3946663.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3946663

  but you will not like that trend.

  (CBS/AP) On the eve of the five-year anniversary of the start of the war with Iraq, Americans continue to think the results of the war have not been worth the loss of American lives and the other costs of attacking Iraq, according to a new CBS News poll.

  Today 29 percent of Americans say the results of the war were worth it; 64 percent say they were not.

  In August 2003, less than six months after the beginning of the war, Americans were divided as the whether or not the results of the war were worth it. Opinion reached a low point in March 2006 - when only one in four Americans said the war was worth the costs.

  Support today breaks heavily along partisan lines. Sixty-two percent of Republicans say the results of the war with Iraq were worth the costs, while only 10 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Independents agree. In fact, belief among Republicans that the war was worth it has risen 11 points since March 2006, while support among Democrats and Independents has remained largely the same.

• 4. Joe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:02 am

  Mark, This is how you mark the 5th year anniversary of this debacle? By distorting a poll?

  Cheney in Iraq:

  How many billions have we spent on this and we are no further along than we were 3 years ago. But Cheney is pleased with the war…

  BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Vice President Dick Cheney told reporters Monday in Baghdad that the five years in Iraq since the war’s start has been “well worth the effort.”
  “I think it’s been a difficult, challenging but nonetheless successful endeavor,” Cheney said on an unannounced visit to their Iraqi capital.

  And no…. this Administration has NEVER tried linking Sadaam and 9/11.

  BAGHDAD — Amid tears and wails, mourners in the southern city of Najaf on Tuesday began burying victims from a suicide bombing that killed nearly 50 worshipers and injured dozens of others just before evening prayers Monday in nearby Karbala .
  In Baghdad , a long-anticipated Iraqi national reconciliation conference began with great fanfare, then quickly dissolved into the usual sectarian and political stalemates that have marred several similar gatherings in recent years
  But Vice President Dick Cheney gave an upbeat view of conditions in Iraq as he concluded his unannounced trip to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion. Cheney also defended the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as part of the struggle against terrorism following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
  This month, an exhaustive Pentagon-sponsored review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured during the 2003 U.S. invasion found no evidence that Saddam’s regime had any operational links with the al Qaida terrorist network.
  “This long-term struggle became urgent on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 . That day we clearly saw that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home,” said Cheney

  Let’s not forget we are now approaching the 4000th military death in Iraq. Let’s hope we don’t reach that number, but there is only one way to stop it from happening.

• 5. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am

  Meanwhile, the Administration and the GOP may cheerfully go on executing their plan, which can be succinctly expressed as, “To hell with what the majority of Americans want. We’re going to do what WE want.” That worked really well in November 2006 and I know a lot of Republican members of Congress are very pleased to know that they get to run that play again in a few months.

• 6. Joe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am

  Mark,
  Since you are quoting the poll here apparently to prove some sort of point. How do you feel about the point that the “survey found that 59% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year.”

  Does Bush have a plan to get us out within the year? I’m all for it.

• 7. Magnum Serpentine  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am

  Another Rasmussen Poll….

  Next

• 8. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am

  This is potentially disastrous news for the Republican brand:
  

  (CNN) — More than 7 out of 10 Americans think government spending on the war in Iraq is partly responsible for the economic troubles in the United States, according to results of a recent poll.

  In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last weekend, 71 percent said they think U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation’s poor economy. Twenty-eight percent said they didn’t think so.

  The weekend poll, timed to coincide with the Iraq war’s fifth anniversary, also showed little U.S. support for the conflict. Fewer than one in three respondents — 32 percent — said they support the war, while 66 percent said they oppose it.

  Sixty-one percent of those polled said the next president should remove most U.S. troops from Iraq “within a few months of taking office.”
  __________
  Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/poll.iraq.economy/index.html

  President Bush and the Republicans are stuck with the current economic mess heading into the election and now the public is linking it with the last five years of pouring money down the Iraq drain. If that holds, Katie bar the door.

• 9. SteaM  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am

  To care about polls or not to care about polls.

  Dick Cheney on ABC’s Good Morning America:

  CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

  RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

  CHENEY: So?

  RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

  CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

• 10. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am

  How about a trip down memory lane? Cue Ted Koppel and Andrew Natsios, then-director of USAID from April 23, 2003 on Nightline:
  

  TED KOPPEL (Off Camera)
  All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7
  billion?

  ANDREW NATSIOS
  Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it’s up and running and there’s a new government that’s been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They’re going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

  Sheer arrogant incompetence or full-blown lying? You decide.

• 11. Joe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am

  Diana, can I vote for both arrogant incompetence AND full-blown lying?

• 12. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am

  Good question, Joe. However, I’m inclined to think it’s only one or the other for poor Mr. Natsios.

• 13. Some Assembly Required  |  March 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am

  I’m leaning towards Full-blown lying, but only in fairness to the Universities that he graduated from (Georgetown and Harvard). Producing a graduate capable of such blatant arrogance and incompetence would destroy the credibility of these institutions.

• 14. SteaM  |  March 19th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

  The term “defeatism” doesn’t really apply to the Iraq war since it has already been won. You cannot be defeated in a war that you have already won.

  Am I missing something?

• 15. Joe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  Yes SteaM. you are missing that they haven’t updated their bumperstickers yet.

• 16. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

  I think the new definition of a scoundrel is trying to compare yourself favorably with our 16th president:
  

  Vice President Dick Cheney, who just completed a two-day visit to Iraq, said the administration won’t “be blown off course” by continued strong opposition to the war in the United States.

  Cheney compared the administration’s task now to Abraham Lincoln’s during the Civil War. “He never would have succeeded if he hadn’t had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there,” Cheney said of Lincoln in an interview broadcast Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
  __________
  Source: http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080319_jh_bushiraq.6435afb.html

  Thank you, Mr. 22% Approval Rating.

• 17. NeoClown  |  March 19th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

  War, huh, yeah
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Say it again, y’all

  War, huh, good God
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Listen to me

  Ohhh, war, I despise
  Because it means destruction
  Of innocent lives

  War means tears
  To thousands of mothers eyes
  When their sons go to fight
  And lose their lives

  I said, war, huh
  Good God, y’all
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Say it again

  War, whoa, Lord
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Listen to me

  War, it ain’t nothing
  But a heartbreaker
  War, friend only to the undertaker
  Ooooh, war
  It’s an enemy to all mankind
  The point of war blows my mind
  War has caused unrest
  Within the younger generation
  Induction then destruction
  Who wants to die
  Aaaaah, war-huh
  Good God y’all
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Say it, say it, say it
  War, huh
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Listen to me

  War, huh, yeah
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Uh-huh
  War, huh, yeah
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Say it again y’all
  War, huh, good God
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Listen to me

  War, it ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker
  War, it’s got one friend
  That’s the undertaker
  Ooooh, war, has shattered
  Many a young mans dreams
  Made him disabled, bitter and mean
  Life is much to short and precious
  To spend fighting wars these days
  War can’t give life
  It can only take it away

  Ooooh, war, huh
  Good God y’all
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Say it again

  War, whoa, Lord
  What is it good for
  Absolutely nothing
  Listen to me

  War, it ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker
  War, friend only to the undertaker
  Peace, love and understanding
  Tell me, is there no place for them today
  They say we must fight to keep our freedom
  But Lord knows there’s got to be a better way

  Ooooooh, war, huh
  Good God y’all
  What is it good for
  You tell me
  Say it, say it, say it, say it

  War, huh
  Good God y’all
  What is it good for
  Stand up and shout it
  Nothing

• 18. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  Neoclown,

  Not necessarily. War is a great diversion for the strong and Churchillian members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarder Division.

• 19. Aaron  |  March 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

  Totaling the damage

  The Cost to Our Forces in Iraq

  3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]

  29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]

  60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures–meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

  5: Number of times the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has been sent to Iraq. They are the first Marine Corps unit to be sent to Iraq for a fifth time. [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/08]

  2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

  11.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

  27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

  The Cost to Our Military Readiness

  88: Percent of current and former U.S. military officers surveyed in a recent independent study who believe that the demands of the war in Iraq have “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin” [Foreign Policy/Center for New American Security, 2/19/08]

  94: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2003 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]

  79: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2007 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]

  4,644: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2003. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]

  12,057: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2007. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]

  67: Percent of captains the Army managed to retain this year, short of its goal of 80 percent, and in spite of cash bonus incentives of up to $35,000 [Armed Services Committee Hearing, 2/26/08]

  The Cost to Our National Security

  1,188: Number of global terrorist incidents from January - September 11th, 2001. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]

  5,188: Number of global terrorist incidents in from January- September 11th, 2006. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]

  30: Percent increase in violence in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. [Reuters, 10/15/07]

  21: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2001. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]

  139: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2006, with an additional increase of 69 percent as of November 2007. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]

  30: Percent of Afghanistan controlled by the Afghan Government according to DNI Mike McConnell. [Associated Press, 2/27/08]

  2,380: Days since September 11th, 2001 that Osama Bin Laden has been at-large.

  The Cost of Funding the War in Iraq

  $50-60 Billion: Bush Administration’s pre-war estimates of the cost of the war. [New York Times, 12/31/02]

  $12 Billion: Direct cost per month of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]

  $526 Billion: Amount of money already appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq. [CRS, 2/22/08]

  $3 Trillion: Total estimated cost of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]

  $5 Trillion - $7 Trillion: Total cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounting for continued military operations, growing debt and interest payments and continuing health care and counseling costs for veterans. [McClatchy, 2/27/08]

  160: Percent that the cost of the Iraq War has increased from 2004 to 2008. [CRS Report, 2/22/08]

  The Cost to Iraqis and Journalists

  8,000: Number of Iraqi military and police killed since June 2003. [Brookings Institute, Iraq Index, March 13, 2008]

  82,000-89,000: Estimate of Iraqi civilians casualties from violence since the beginning of the Iraq War. [Iraq Body Count]

  4.5 Million: Number of Iraqi refugees both inside and outside the country. [Washington Post, 3/17/08]

  61: Percent of Iraqis that believe the U.S. military presence makes the security situation in Iraq worse. [Agence France-Presse, 3/17/08]

  127: Number of journalists killed in Iraq since March 2003. [Committee to Protect Journalists]

  Economic Costs of War in Iraq

  $33.51: Cost of a barrel of oil in March 2003. [Energy Information Administration]

  $105.68: Cost of a barrel of oil on March 17, 2008. [NYMEX]

  U.S. Troops and Contractors in Iraq

  132,000: Number of U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2007, before President Bush’s escalation. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]

  155,000: Number of U.S. troops currently in Iraq. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]

  140,000: Number of U.S. troops projected to be in Iraq in July 2008. [Associated Press, 2/26/08]

  35,000: Number of private security contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]

  180,000: Number of private contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]

  Progress Towards Political Reconciliation Made By Iraqis

  3: Number out of 18 Bush Administration Benchmarks Met by Iraqi Government As of January 24, 2008. [Center for American Progress, 1/24/08]

  18: Number of provinces President Bush said would be secured by Iraqis as of November 2007. [President Bush Speech, 1/10/07]

  8: Number of provinces actually secured by Iraqis as of January 2008. [NPR, 1/7/08]

  Bush-Republican Intransigence on Staying the Course in Iraq

  8: Number of times a majority of the Senate has voted to change course in Iraq.

  7: Number of times Bush Republicans in Congress have blocked changing course in Iraq.

  1: Number of vetoes issued by the White House over changing course in Iraq.

• 20. Joe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

  Thanks for that Aaron. I was starting to look for something that gave all the numbers.

  But hey… it was a “successful endeavor” according to Cheney.

  Good grief. Is it almost over?

• 21. Macker  |  March 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  “Good grief. Is it almost over?”

  It’ll be over for you when the Islamofascists kill you and your loved ones.

• 22. Magnum Serpentine  |  March 19th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  Aaron,

  Also remember george has redefined what war wounded and war dead means. That way he can keep the numbers down to the 3990 instead of the possible 7000 or more troops who have really died due to war related injuries.

• 23. Joe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  Nice Macker. Let’s kill anyone who speaks out against the war. You are a fucking clown.

  Mark, comment #21 OBVIOUSLY shows how this blog has become a complete train wreck. I’m sure you won’t delete that comment, but hey… it’s your blog.

• 24. Canadian Observer  |  March 19th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  It’ll be over for you when the Islamofascists kill you and your loved ones.

  21. Macker | March 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  The incoherent responses from you and the other shock & awe supporters just show how desperate you have become in trying to defend the indefensible.

  In scrambling for rebuttal points you continue to fall back on issuing threats of annihilation by islamofascists and in doing so fail to realize that the Chicken Little defence no longer works.

  It’s time for the crew to put their heads together and work up a new agenda of fear.

• 25. BARRASSO  |  March 19th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  ‘It’ll be over for you when the Islamofascists kill you and your loved ones.’

  Ah there it is the classic case of personal conservative cowardice, that is what it’s all about. The islamofascisticists WILL KILL US ALL!!!!!!! WE MUST NUKE THE MIDDLE EAST NOW!!!!!!!!! Or I might wet my bed again.

• 26. bongoman  |  March 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

  It?ll be over for you when the Islamofascists kill you and your loved ones.

  Try and keep your head Macker and not let fear get the better of you.

• 27. SteaM  |  March 19th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

  It’ll be over for you when the Islamofascists kill you and your loved ones.

  Mark,

  Do you honestly support this kind of statement? If it’s on your blog and you don’t delete it or post a comment here saying you disagree with it then it will be obvious that you agree with it.

  Or will you claim it was a poorly worded joke similiar to Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a “faggot” or Imus calling a succesful sports team made up black woman “nappy headed ho’s”… or Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox’s Parkinsons disease.

• 28. CuriousGeorge  |  March 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  Or I might wet my bed again.

  You do that every night, don’t you, barrASSo?

  Cheney also defended the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as part of the struggle against terrorism following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

  Joke, what part of “as part of the struggle against terrorism following…” don’t you comprehend? I know you lefties use this as “proof” that the administration linked Saddam with 9/11; is this the closest you can spin this? Are you as brain-dead as the rest of the trolls here?

  Don’t bother answering; you’ll only be lying. I’ll bet Bill Maher is one of your idols, huh?

  Uh, streaM, your post is just as redundant as Joke’s. You swallow the Bill Maher/Elsie O’Donnell lies hook, line, and sinker. Limbaugh wasn’t mocking little Mikey; he was demonstrating Mikey’s spasms, just like others do when describing other’s actions. Little MJ should’ve taken his meds; he admitted he didn’t for effect.

  Mark, 23% seems low when sampling the troll pukes who pollute this once-fine blog. All of these trolls are cut-and-run surrender monkeys…

• 29. CuriousGeorge  |  March 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  Nice Macker. Let’s kill anyone who speaks out against the war. You are a ******* clown.

  Joke, that’s what you got out of Macker’s comment? You are a moron, aren’t you? A regular train wreck, that’s you…

• 30. Canadian Observer  |  March 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  Limbaugh wasn’t mocking little Mikey; he was demonstrating Mikey’s spasms, just like others do when describing other’s actions.

  28. CuriousGeorge | March 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  Why in the blue blazes would Limbaugh feel he had to demonstrate Michael’s spasms? Is his brain working at preschool level? We’ve all seen children do this sort of thing; but come on now, a grown adult?

• 31. Some Assembly Required  |  March 19th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

  28. CuriousGeorge | March 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  ‘Mikey’s Spasms’ as you so eloquently put it are symptoms of Parkinson’s. I take it know one you know has been touched by the disease. If they had, you would be absolutely appaulled if someone would even mimic them on the street, let alone on national television. But then that can be expected from Limbaugh after all he just labeled Obama as “the race candidate”.

• 32. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

  Well, Mark predicted the Rasmussen poll he approvingly cited would “drive our lefties nuts”. When that failed miserably, apparently that left Plan B which is angry personal venom. Venom and self-parodying “rhetoric” like “cut-and-run surrender monkeys”.

• 33. CuriousGeorge  |  March 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  …appaulled if someone would even mimic them on the street, let alone on national television.

  “Appaulled?” I’m appalled that you’re a moron. Now read carefully, moron: Rush wasn’t on national television; he was on his “Dittocam,” and was not, I repeat, was not making fun of Little Mikey.

  And Earbama’s speech made him the race candidate. A candidate who lies and hates America. A candidate who, instead of condemning(sp?) a racist who hates America, threw his grandmother under the bus.

  Our issue with Earbama’s relationship with Rev. Wright was not about race; it was about Wright’s ultra-leftist conspiracy-theory stance. It was about Wright’s racism, and Earbama’s refusal to denounce this pig.

  Sorry about the slam on Little Mikey, but I’m tired of you redundant arsehats bringing up old lies. Have a nice day, jerk.

• 34. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

  As I said…

• 35. Diana Powe  |  March 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  Between using Republican National Committee email addresses for the nation’s business and allegedly accidentally erasing millions of email messages the law says were to be preserved, a federal magistrate is now ready to order forensic copies of computer hard drives at the White House to try to capture “missing” records, including those covering the beginning of the Iraq fiasco:
  

  The White House has three days to explain why it shouldn’t be required to copy its computer hard drives to ensure no further e-mails are lost, a federal judge ordered Tuesday. Already, e-mails between March and October 2003 appear to have been lost, Judge John M. Facciola noted, because they were improperly archived and no backup copies exist. That period includes the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

  E-mails by White House staff are considered part of the nation’s historical record, and federal law requires they be preserved. The White House has admitted that potentially millions of e-mails from the past eight years have been erased, although it has provided conflicting accounts on how many may still exist on backup tapes, though it has since said it believes “all or substantially all” e-mails are available on backup tapes.
  __________
  Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4473451&page=1

  Sheer, bungling incompetence or stonewalling, you decide.

• 36. Some Assembly Required  |  March 19th, 2008 at 7:26 pm

  Limbaugh wasn’t making fun of Micheal J Fox and his disease?

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html

  You are a warped individual sir. What facts do you have to prove Obama hates America? When has Obama lied?

  Let me answer that second question for you. When questioned about the Sermon thats floating around youtube Obama said he did not attend that sermon so he did not hear the racist remarks. Then when asked if he had ever heard Wright say anything controversial Obama says Yes. Therefore, he must have lied about hearing Wrights racist remarks right? Which is what you would believe if you only had a primary school education.

  Now you’ve confused me, you say Obama’s speech made him the ‘race’ candidate. Then you come back saying your issue with Obama is about Wright and not ‘race’?

  His speech was about the Wright controversy so which is it?

  Personal attacks are a great way to get your point across while sounding intelligent and credible, keep up the good work.

• 37. SteaM  |  March 19th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

  I guess I shouldn’t have brought up the Michael J. Fox & Rush Limbaugh incident since it didn’t exactly fit with the point I was making…

  Mark,

  You obviously have labeled Obama many negative things based on what his former Pastor said.

  Knowing that you are a devout Christian I feel like that is really disrespectful. I mean, to you, Barack Obama should be considered a fellow brother in Christ. He didn’t say these words that his Pastor spoke yet you act like they came off his own lips. You should be happy that he not only believes in God but is a fellow Christian with a loving family, a seemingly very wholesome family from what we’ve seen, and a loving and intelligent and supportive wife. You should really try to reconsider your view of him if it is based on his preacher’s cherry-picked opinions.

  I really think that people are unfairly attacking a good man because of what someone else said. He’s told you that he disagrees with those specific things that Rev Wright had to say that you are upset about but he still says that he respects this man and that those few statements do not accurately describe Mr. Wright’s true self. And who are we to disagree? We don’t know this former pastor as well as Barack does.s

  You know, of those of us on this blog commenting away about this, and people all over the country talking about it, who do you think really knows the true Reverand Wright better than Barack Obama? Who are we to even assume anything or speculate as to who and what this former Pastor is like or what his views are? Can we really say if he is “anti-American”? I think not. Not based on the little information we have.

  Anyways, this story regarding Rev. Wright’s comments and the fact that he was Obama’s former pastor is a story that ABC (I think) reported on recently. I read the comments and personally was pretty happy that there was a preacher like this and was wishing I had him when I was going to church for the first 18 years of my life. Therefore this was a non-issue for me and I went back to my normal tension felt from real issues like my girlfriend’s brother (a member of the National Guard) being in Iraq right now and how we haven’t heard from him in weeks and he usually get’s back to us within a day, or the economy and how or if I am going to survive the problems we are having. I am thinking about if I can keep my home I bought 3 years ago… which I purchased proudly, it is the American dream after all. I am concerned with what to do with my gas-guzzling vehicle now that gas here is approaching $3.25 in the coming months. I just paid off the car last month after having worked on that paying off that loan, on time every month with payment, for 5 years. Succeeding at being the responsible credit user. Another benefit of living in this great country of ours.

  So, I read about Barack Obama’s former pastor Reverend Wright’s controversial comments that was supposedly hurting Barack and decided that not only did I like and agree with what he said I was ready to move on to seeing what Obama was going to do for me as President regarding my concerns with the war, the economy, and my options regarding using affordable fuel or finding a cleaner/greener form of transportation.

  But you (a Christian) and many of your readers, and Rush and Ann’s listeners, decided it was a disgusting and racist thing that Reverend Wright had said these things and that Barack Obama having this man as a mentor made him guilty by association. Guilty of many disgusting and untrue labels that are present in this thread’s comment section.

  I hope this is a better response than the one I had earlier.

• 38. Some Assembly Required  |  March 19th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

  Steam,

  Thanks for that post. Sometimes you just get so caught up in proving things the important things tend to slip away. I hope you hear from your girlfriends brother soon and he is well.

  Regards

• 39. Tractatus  |  March 20th, 2008 at 12:22 am

  I mean, to you, Barack Obama should be considered a fellow brother in Christ.

  You would think so, but no. Noonan–clearly a charter member of the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fan Club–would have you believe that there really is no such thing as a liberal Christian; people who are liberal Christians either aren’t really liberals or aren’t really Christians. Obama is a liberal, therefore he cannot be a Christian.

  Pretty nuts, huh? But that’s Noonan for ya.

• 40. Michael  |  March 20th, 2008 at 11:53 am

  I wonder why Obama, who wants you to put all this in “context” and consider more than Wright’s years of hate speech was so quick as to be the first one to call for the firing of Don Imus after Imus made that racist joke on air? What happened to “context” there?

• 41. Joe  |  March 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  not sure why my comment was “awaiting moderation”, but here it is again…….

  19 hours later (now 22hrs) and I see Mark hasn?t deleted Mackers comment #21 above.

  Yet the deletion of opposing views is alive and well in all other posts.

  Mark, I am appalled (got that keefer monkey?) that you allow that crap on your blog.

• 42. Faceplant  |  March 21st, 2008 at 4:51 am

  “The tiny minority who see President Bush as evil and the war as being for oil/Israel/Likud/Halliburton/Insert Conspiracy Theory Here are that 23% in the poll - the rest of America is ready to see us there for at least another year, or even longer (36% home within a year, 35% to stay indefinitely). ”

  From your own post,

  “A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year”

  No, they are the majority in the poll that you just cited. Do you just make these numbers up as you go along?

• 43. Diana Powe  |  March 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm

  The official White House reaction to the overwhelming and stable majority of Americans who reject the Administration’s handling of the Iraq situation? From the much-beloved Vice President, “So?” Seldom has a single word so neatly encapsulated the complete arrogance of power.

  Press Secretary Dana Perino defends the Vice President’s dismissal of public views this way, “The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.” So, paraphrasing Ms. Perino, “The American people can just shut the f’ up, except at the polling place, because any other time their whining doesn’t matter.”

  Oddly, the American public holds a different view:
  

  In sharp contrast to views recently expressed by Vice President Cheney, a new poll finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe government leaders should pay attention to public opinion polls and that the public should generally have more influence over government leaders than it does.

  Eighty-one percent say when making “an important decision” government leaders “should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public’s views.” Only 18 percent said “they should not pay attention to public opinion polls because this will distract them from deciding what they think is right.”
  __________
  Source:http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/461.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=461&nid=&id=