Bad News for Democrats on the War
March 29th, 2008 at 07:37am Mark Noonan
At least, this Rasmussen survey indicates such:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 47% of likely voters believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Twenty percent (20%) say the terrorists are winning, while 27% say neither.
Over the past several months, confidence in the War on Terror has grown to the highest levels since the President was re-elected. The 47% who say the U.S. and its allies are winning is a sharp increase from the 33% who held that view at the beginning of 2007.
The 20% of voters who believe the terrorists are winning marks the lowest level of pessimism every measured by this poll since tracking began in January 2004.
I’d like to apologise on behalf ot America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines - I know they were supposed to lose this thing so Democrats could win, but they didn’t play their part…I mean, how could we expect them to? They’re just a bunch of losers who couldn’t get to college, anyways…if only they were a little smarter, they’d realise how important it is for Democrats to win, and thus for them to lose.
What we really need to do is draft all the young people in Manhattan and San Francisco - that would give us a military sure to lose, and thus help Democrats!
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, War on Terror
37 Comments
1. JD | March 29th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Deleted - off topic.
2. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Deleted - off topic.
3. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Deleted - off topic.
4. extramedium | March 29th, 2008 at 9:26 am
“They’re just a bunch of losers who couldn’t get to college, anyways…if only they were a little smarter, they’d realise how important it is for Democrats to win, and thus for them to lose.”
Careful, Mark - if that chip on your shoulder about not going to college gets any bigger, you might just collapse under the weight of it!
To your point - I disagree with your assertion that liberals are hoping for some sort of defeat in Iraq. That’s a fabrication of right-wing pundits. The logic goes - since a Republican administration led the invasion of Iraq, if it doesn’t go well, Republicans will suffer politically. Therefore, political opponents of Republicans MUST be hoping for Iraq to end badly.
The trouble is, the whole idea is made up. No liberal has actually said “I hope the Iraq war ends in complete disaster”. It’s just what you imagine (or hope) they must be thinking, and frankly it’s a sick, cynical thought that could only be conjured by a bitter, hateful partisan. I know you didn’t make it up yourself, but shame on you for propagating this lie.
Imagine how hurtful it must feel for a soldier to hear this false notion that somebody hopes they would lose or die. Why would you do that to our soldiers? Is a small political gain really worth that to you?
5. Jay Gaultieri | March 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Flashlight, I’ve posted on the trouble in Sadr City and Basra twice and been ignored both times.
In fairness to Mark, most other right-wing blogs would have deleted my post, and some would have banned me entirely. That’s why I post here because Mark is more civil than the rest of the right-wing blogosphere.
6. js | March 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
i dont see why you call those people fanatical islam
muslims have been doing the same thing for 1400 years
over the last century, we forgot what islam is all about, but no, this isnt radical islam its not fanatic’s, this is orthodox islam, and those who do not endorse it, or pretend that its not the true islam are just another tool the muslims have to reassure thier enemies that they mean us no harm while the islamic world builds up thier strenght to fight us, just like mohammad did, and a dozen others that followed in his footsteps from egypt to turkey
so no, dont pretend that everything is ok, because its not, there are 3.5 billion muslims in the world and most of them believe that what OBL and AQ are doing “IS” the will of allah
7. Kahn | March 29th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Deleted - off topic.
8. Casper | March 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“so no, dont pretend that everything is ok, because its not, there are 3.5 billion muslims in the world and most of them believe that what OBL and AQ are doing “IS” the will of allah”
I don’t know where you got your “facts”, however you managed to triple the actual number of Muslims while at the same time claiming to be a spokesman for them.
That said, what is going on in Iraq right now is a civil war between rival Shite groups.
9. Michael | March 29th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Based on the majority of comments so far, Mark, I’d have to say you were dead on about the ‘bad news’ part of your article title. I notice whenever the news is bad for the lefties, the remarks they leave are emotional, pathetic ad hominem slams against you and the evil Booosh empire/cabal.
Of course there will be the kinds of struggle that we see in Iraq right now as the newly-trained Iraqi military asserts its authority over the rebels. The main fight is against the Sadr militia which is trying one last time to take control. They are defying their leader’s orders so the real ‘civil war’ is internal to the militia. The will be defeated and the Iraqi military will win. As was planned we are providing minimal support, including air power to the Iraqis since they don’t have that capacity yet. It is a big fight for the elected government to take control of the country and the fight was inevitable. The militias are bound to lose. They have no logistics, no central leadership, and no plan. As their numbers dwindle, they will give up. And since it really isn’t about religion, they won’t want to be martyrs either. Once this fight is over, things will be much quieter in Iraq. But the fight must be joined and won by the Iraqi military, which seems to be where they are headed. We are showing wisdom by stepping back into a support role and giving them a chance to succeed.
10. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Two words: Sadr City
11. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Deleted - off topic.
12. Magnum Serpentine | March 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
another poll form Rasmussen survey.
the neutral Gallup says 60% want out of the war
Next
13. jerry | March 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I think this poll is accurate in as far as in the “war on terror” we have not been attacked in the 50 states for over 6 and 1/2 years. That is commendable and the president and homeland security should be rightly praised for that accomplishment. I think that is what this poll reflects. But what is troubling is that people who actually planned 911 are still roaming free in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan in their nissan trucks with their pajamas and rpg’s. This is unacceptable and the president doesn’t seem really focused on rectifying this situation for has been bogged down in MESSopotamia.
What is frightening about the new shiite civil war going on right now in Basra and Baghdad is that the US is supporting factions that are loyal to Iran and not the Iraqi people. The only reason that Maliki attacked Sadr now is that elections are coming up and Maliki knows that Sadr and his nationalists would take some power from Maliki’s Da’wa party and the Supreme Islamic Council (both shiite parties more aligned with Iran than the actual Iraqi people).
This is madness we are fighting the war on terror by again helping the Iranians. This morass in Iraq that has been created in the name of the “War On Terror” is more compex than this adminstration can fathom. It will not end well regardless of what is done.
If we stay our troops will be targets, when we leave the many factions wil be at each others throats for power. Cheney was right in 1992.
14. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The next phase of the war is simple:
American troops start going house to house in Sadr City. Heavy casualties are taken early but the Mehdi Army casualties are heavier along with civilian casualties. The Iranians offer supplies including weapons and the Green Zone gets pounded.
Bush goes on tee vee and tells the world that Iran has entered the war in Iraq on the “side of al Qaeda” because “if you ain’t with us you’re against us.” Guided missile frigates in the Persian Gulf launch conventional cruise missile strikes against strategic targets in Iran including refineries, electricity generation plants, and their nuclear development sites.
American anger at Iran is peaked; patriotism is at a new high as scenes of the death and destruction in Natanz and the holy city of Qom are broadcast on Fox. Yet . . .
In days after the “victory” markets start to turn against America. OPEC slows production to “analyze” the situation. Gold breaks $1250 an ounce oil pushes toward $175. Three days after the strikes cars with mushroom cloud shaped “bomb bomb Iran” magnets proudly displayed are lining up to buy gas at the cheap price of $4.50 per gallon with greater increases and shortages expected. One station in California is already showing $ 7.29 for regular and $8. 99 for premium; the national average has spiked to $4.129 per gallon for 87 octane.
The Iranian government still functioning in a darkened Tehran led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei orders tactical strikes with their few large missiles that remain to target not Israel but the US Green Zone. The loss of life is staggering.
You can all realize what the next step is the UGMs come out and they fundies get their mushroom cloud. Game Over.
15. jerry | March 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
what is a UGM?
16. Marty13 | March 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Kahn sez, “Stop-Loss, yet ANOTHER anti-war movie bombs at the box office.”
So what’s your point? Are you saying this movie bombed (it only opened in Boston yesterday) because it’s anti-war and therefore people aren’t seeing it because they’re secretly pro-war? Hmmmm…..
Or maybe, just maybe could it be that the movie has received a lukewarm reception by most critics and almost everyone in this country is roundly sick of this PNAC inspired conflict.
But what do I know, I’m a Demacrat
17. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
UGM 109 tactical nuclear Tomahawk cruise missile
18. Marty13 | March 29th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
ouch….sorry, Democrat.
19. jerry | March 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
thank you. I don’t think I will be raptured if that occurrs. Oh, well I wouldn’t want to be raptured with the likes of John Hagee and his lot anyway.
20. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Deleted - off topic.
21. Kahn | March 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Marty13 - it bombed like all the other anti-war movies because the anti-war message is actually an anti-America and pro-defeat message. Many Americans may not be happy we went to Iraq and not happy with the conduct of the war. BUT, that does not mean they want to lose. It does NOT mean they hate the military.
Meanwhile, frankly the far left does.
But hey, invest in some anti-America far left movie if you want to. I don’t care. In capitalism… we vote with dollars.
22. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
dt
>>>Can somone show me where that is in the Bible again?<<<
OK
Romans 1
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (TNIV), Paul writes
“ Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
23. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I’m sure that this will definitely increase American’s support for the Iraq debacle:
I wonder if Arabic has the passive construction to enable the Prime Minister to phrase it as, “Mistakes were made”?
24. Kahn | March 29th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Yes Diana, there’s a fight on.
Quiz: What were the bloodiest battles for us in WW2? Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Battle of the Bulge? What do they have in common?
25. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Oh! Oh! I know this one! They have in common that President George W. Bush’s decision five years ago to invade a sovereign nation that had not attacked is not even remotely comparable to the Second World War.
26. NeoClown | March 30th, 2008 at 12:26 am
“Quiz: What were the bloodiest battles for us in WW2?”
Due to technological advancements in armaments, we now do most of out killing from 30,000 feet. Due to technological advancements in medicine the survival rate for the wounded has increased a thousand fold. Comparing US deaths from battle in 1942 to 2008 just makes you look silly.
“Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the Battle of the Bulge? What do they have in common?”
I know this one: Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the Battle of the Bulge were all fought and won in less time than we’ve spent in Iraq.
27. Leo Pusateri | March 30th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Every bloody post made by a leftist on this thread screams that they want America to lose in Iraq! Not one word of, “America’s soldiers are doing great!” Not one word of thanks for their sacrifices.
Your every post is dripping with disdain for our soldiers’ mission in Iraq, all because the war was initiated with a President with an (R) next to his name.
You’re so bloody pathetic. The lot of you.
28. Mark Noonan | March 30th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Neo,
Just as a matter of curiosity, can you provide even one example of an American bomb being dropped from 30,000 feet during this war?
That aside…
Its an absurdity to claim that the fighting is standoff in this war - our troops, and their Iraqi allies, are currently going toe to toe in Basra and Baghdad with the enemy…and while the London Times is writing it as a complete disaster, the truth is a bit different:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17923&Itemid=128
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17922&Itemid=128
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17921&Itemid=128
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17919&Itemid=128
29. extramedium | March 30th, 2008 at 4:11 am
“Every bloody post made by a leftist on this thread screams that they want America to lose in Iraq! Not one word of, “America’s soldiers are doing great!” Not one word of thanks for their sacrifices.”
Leo - come on now. If you look through the history of comments on this blog, you’ll see lots of thanks and praise for our troop’s service from those on the left. People do a pretty good job of separating their criticism of civilian policy from their recognition of the good work of our soldiers.
Since the day the Iraq war started, those on the right have been telling us that because we have troops in harms way, you can no longer criticize the war in any way because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That would be politically convenient for the administration, but simply not possible in a functioning democracy. The decision to go to war is a civilian decision, not a military decision. The policy that brings about war - when to start it, when to end it, whether to escalate or attack other countries, etc. - MUST be subject to criticism. Otherwise, it’s not a democracy.
30. Kahn | March 30th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Diana, wrong. They all came near the end.
But it looks like Sadr got his ass kicked and is asking for a cease fire (because he got his ass kicked). What ya know. Iraqi military victory!
You are right about one thing though - if you were this much of a traitor during World War Two someone would have shot you by now.
31. Diana Powe | March 30th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Kahn,
You’re so cute when you’re snarling and snapping at your fellow Americans, especially with the extra-added goodness of all that machismo-filled blather about “Sadr got his ass kicked” and the passive-aggressive death threat directed towards me. Good job! I’m so glad that Blogs For Victo(r)y never shows any hatred from those who call themselves conservatives.
32. Kahn | March 30th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Now now little traitor. Don’t get your panties in a bunch. I didn’t say I wanted to shoot you. And I was talking about World War Two when the Democrats were on our side… You know, 60+ years ago.
Now, your defeatism and anti-Americanism is completely acceptable. Heck, in Hollywood - it’s revered.
Sadr did get his ass kicked though.
33. Diana Powe | March 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Thanks for the puerile twaddle.
34. Tractatus | March 30th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
while the London Times is writing it as a complete disaster, the truth is a bit different:
Again, you do realize that the site you are calling “the truth” is a PR operation run by the Lincoln Group, don’t you?
35. Kahn | March 30th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Whatever Diane.
Why don’t you bomb or ransack a recruiting station? Maybe keep the Boy Scouts from collecting soap and shaving cream for the troops? Your kindred have…
Or better yet, why don’t you jump on every occasion to wring your hands and cry for surrender, even when we win the battle? WE’RE DOOOOOMMMMMEEEDDD!!!!!
It gets old you shrill cow.
36. Aaron | March 30th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I’m pretty damn sure that every post I made here was pretty damn on topic.
Sorry you don’t have the stomach for the truth, Mark.
You can delete my posts, but you can’t erase reality. And you know what they say about reality…
37. Aaron | March 30th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Wasn’t the topic of this thread the war in Iraq? Well, I can’t blame you for not wanting to talk about the topic at hand.