Slow Bleed
I couldn't take any more of the hot air debate in the House and studiously avoided it all day Wednesday.
The more it goes on, the less I feel invested in the coming, final vote. The non-binding disagree-with-the-surge resolution seems ever more limp and irrelevant.
Once it passes, I suppose the good news will be that we can say, henceforth, that all subsequent combat deaths will be non-binding. All grieving families will be given a voucher and as soon as the war actually is bought to an end, the dead will be redeployed back to life.
Now, to give equal time to the other side of this question. John Bresnahan, writing for The Politico, reports on the strategic vision [sic] of the House Democrats and why they've decided on such a, well, cautious stance:
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the
administration's options...As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
... Pelosi and other top Democrats are not yet prepared for an open battle with the White House over ending funding for the war, and they are wary of Republican claims that Democratic leaders would endanger the welfare of U.S. troops. The new approach of first reducing the number of troops available for the conflict, while maintaining funding levels for units already in the field, gives political cover to conservative House Democrats who are nervous about appearing "anti-military" while also mollifying the anti-war left, which has long been agitating for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to be more aggressive.
OK, that's enough. You get the point. Let me be the first to concede that this notion of being politically vulnerable to charges of abandoning the troops etc. is obviously real. I have no idea to what degree, however. I'll even concede that Pelosi et al might be correct in evaluating this factor as crucially significant.
I will just as quickly note that even if they are correct, this is NOT what audacious political leadership looks like. This is what lemmings look like. Leaders evaluate political circumstances and then act strategically to reshape the environment for real advantage, or God Forbid, real progress or reform. Lemmings meekly and collectively adapt to the circumstances they encounter and methodically trudge forward.
All that said, I don't really believe the Democrats would be so vulnerable to charges of abandonment. If, of course, they openly challenged such an easily defeatable pseudo-argument.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Agreed and it would be good if they were bolder and the instruments – Obama-Thomas-Murphy, and Feingold – are there to be used. But I fear that even though the people are way ahead of the politicos on this the reticence is understandable. I mean, if NEWSWEEK is still repeating th canard that Nancy Pelosi demanded a taj mahal airplane for her personal use with no evidence and several denials (from the clerk of the House to Tony Snow) its easy to see why some are gunshy here.
That, I fear, is part of the price we pay for a media that loves to gin up “Scandals” that are fed to them from the likes of the Washington TIMES and other Mooney sources – remember Obama’s “Madrassas”?
February 14th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Marc your commentary is interesting as always. I suppose you are right that this debate will not render an end to the war, but guess what–no Iraq resolution will. So the Dems decide introduce a binding resoution for debate? No way it will pass both chambers. It magically does pass both the House and Senate? It gets vetoed.
What the actual words on the resolution say is irrevelent. Its only real power is to further a national dialogue about the war as well as exist as the polical posturing and symbolism that is all too common in congress. Consequently, I don’t really see the point of railing against the current legistlation for being ineffective when it would have no more practicality than the resolution you’d like to see be brought up.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
“This is what lemmings look like. Leaders evaluate political circumstances and then act strategically to reshape the environment for real advantage, or God Forbid, real progress or reform. Lemmings meekly and collectively adapt to the circumstances they encounter and methodically trudge forward.”
Yeah, but when it’s virtually impossible to “reshape the environment for real advantage” (as will be the case when there is considerable division within parties, and among the electorate, and where most seats are safe anyway), the most lemming-like behavior if you’re a politician is to say things that hurt your chances of reelection. Which no smart pol will do. Hence, what you’re hearing today.
These politicians aren’t following leaders. They are following polls. And what would you think that polls are unambiguously saying right now? You’d probably be wrong, if you hadn’t been following them closely.
You’d probably say, for example, that the number of Americans expressing a belief that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake must now be at an all-time high. It’s not. That peak was reached in Sep ‘05. It’s now down from its second highest peak (which was 58%, Oct ‘06) by two points.
You’d probably say that a majority of Americans being against adding more troops (and they are) means a majority in favor of denying funding for that purpose. You’d be wrong about that too: 58% are against denying funding.
You’d probably opine that a majority of Americans would say that their representative’s position on the war would be a major factor in how they vote next time. At this point, only 42% of Americans say that.
And, hey, wouldn’t at least a third of Americans say that Iraq is the most important issue for them in how they’d choose to vote for a presidential candidate? Nope — only 14% say so.
Well, in any case, given that the overall opinion trend for a couple years now has been that the war is a mistake, and the President has botched it, and that we’re not winning, isn’t it reasonable to suppose that the number of blazing-wingnut Americans favoring a troop *increase* must have dropped into the low single digits? Actually, it’s at 26% now. It was 24% a few weeks ago, 18% at the beginning of the year, 12% in April of last year.
Well, OK, then *certainly* the percentage in favor of *decreasing* troop levels must be at an all-time high? Nope. That was 34%, in December. Then it went to 30%, to 26%, and now it’s about 23%. Yep, down about 10 points over two months, even as the Dems swept into Congress.
And how do Americans feel about passing this non-binding resolution anyway? By slim margins, they say it shouldn’t pass.
These poll results are not from registered voters, much less from likely voters. From what I’ve seen, filtering the raw numbers down to “likely voter” usually adds about a 2% rightward/hawkish tilt. And of course, given the way things work in American democracy, where rural votes count for more, and rural is a rough proxy for “conservative”, you can see that the GOP is still in the game here.
Btw, please don’t throw “margin for error” arguments at me. For one question, yes, that’s a reasonable statistical objection. But for so many of them?
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Numbers are boring, perhaps. However, they are more interesting than your average political speech, which usually counts for little except as an echo of what a representative’s poll numbers are saying anyway. So I say: study poll numbers. They save you a lot of time you’d otherwise waste listening to speeches, and they seldom stimulate your gag reflexes nearly as much!
February 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
As long as I’m wonking away at polls, here’s something intriguing:
“In your opinion, do you think that the war between the United States and Iraq is likely to lead to a larger war between other countries in the Middle East?”
59% say yes now. Only 35% were concerned about this on the eve of the invasion. “Unsure” has gone from 11% to 7%.
Expect this to become a major talking point for GOP presidential candidates. It’s supported not only by the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, but by major Arab League members. Mitt Romney, that ex-moderate Repub who is now courting the GOP base ardently, says we have to stay in Iraq to keep the lid on something much more serious (and by inference, more damaging to our oil-supply interests even if you don’t give a rat’s ass for Middle Easterners. Of course, if you’re a rightwing evangelical, your favorite Middle Easterners are Israelis, so it works either way.) McCain has, of course, been consistently in favor of significant troop increases. I don’t know what Giuliani is saying. Even after reading this:
“Giuliani, Saying He Is Running for President, Offers His Views on the War in Iraq”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/us/politics/15rudy.html
February 14th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
“As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.”–The Politico
So, out of fear of being accused of abandoning the troops in the field, the Democrats are abandoning the troops in the field rather than taking serious action to bring them home. That’s the end result of all this timidity, and a lot of people will notice it sooner or later–including people who voted for the Democrats because they promised to bring the war to an end.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Balter,
(1) The fear of that accusation is hardly without foundation, given that a majority of Americans prefer that the surge be funded, even if most *also* don’t agree with it.
(2) Without veto-override numbers they don’t have, the Dems can’t take “serious action” anyway.
(3) If troops are feeling “abandoned in the field” in Iraq, why do active-duty servicemembers say they still support the war, when asked in polls?
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php
(4) Who were these Democrats you talk about who “promised” to bring the war to an end? I don’t remember any. I sorta remember some guy named Murtha, a couple others, hazily. I hear some campaign rhetoric now, even see some no-hoper bills being introduced. But really, the Dems know they need to make common cause with (most of) the GOP in order to “end” the war. They also know that getting our troops out does not, in itself, promise an end to the war, and might mark the beginning of war in earnest — with repercussions that could haunt both parties and the rest of the world for decades.
Welcome to American political reality. Oh, you poor thing: you’re shivering. Didn’t anyone tell you to bring a sweater?
February 15th, 2007 at 3:59 am
OK, time out for comic relief. Remember the Iranian weapons charade? C’mon, it was only a few *days* ago, of course you do! Guess what bundle of trash recently floated up?
I found the following on that slam-dunk conspiracy site, Prison Planet.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/140207fake.htm
Yes, it’s still true: On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog.
Actually, I found the author’s case against this site being AMIG’s official website a little weak. Arms manufacturers don’t drum up business on websites — they do it at arms bazaars. So they probably *would* skimp on this part of their marketing budget, and hire some student at an Iranian university for his “good English” and “highly recommended web design expertise”. Yeah, the website’s filename/directory structure *is* in English, but that’s consistent with rip-mix-burn web design — you steal somebody’s else’s content and customize it. “Tahran” for “Tehran”? Given how vague the “e”/”a” distinctions are in Arabic, I wouldn’t be surprised if improvisational romanization is equally hazy in Farsi. The phone numbers being off in length? Maybe the guy got lazy and recycled some old content from the now-dead (if it ever lived) http://www.amig.com site.
It’s all explainable, except for one thing: I can’t find evidence that AMIG ever sells its wares at one of the arms bazaars this website claims AMIG goes to. Actually, it seems rather unlikely that it would ever show up at one of them in particular.
I checked a conference site for IDEX, an arms bazaar hosted by Abu Dhabi. I tried searching the site for “AMIG” though Google. Nothing. So I tried sitesearch of attending vendors by nationality. The selections possible included lots of countries that don’t even export arms (Fiji, for example), but … Iran is not even listed among the choices. I mean, it’s like *everybody* goes to IDEX — *except* Iran. My palm smacks my forehead: of *course* Iran would be removed from that list, if any country would. It’s an Arab Gulf arms bazaar — most of the customers who go are arming themselves *against* Iran.
Oops. I’d say whoever set up this site was buying himself a ticket to somewhere else. If he wasn’t already somewhere else already. On the Internet, Nobody Knows Where the Dog Is.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:16 am
I will just comment on one of Turner’s selectively chosen pieces of information. The overwhelming majority of troops disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war, which might just contribute to a subjective feeling on their part that they are being abandoned on the battlefield–which makes my position that they are objectively being abandoned all the more reasonable:
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
I stand by my statement that Democratic fears on this score are based on opportunism rather than concern for the troops, in fact Turner makes the point for me.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Or to paraphrase (very closely) Charles Schumer, the mastermind of strategic positioning in the Beltway, “We have the moral high ground now.” Therefore, why really do anything? Translation: it’s all really about US, not the troops in Iraq or, perish the thought, the Iraqis.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I wonder what “antiwar groups” with whom the Democrats were working “in concert”? Code Pink and UFPJ? Win without War? Appeal to Redress?
Nope.
Probably those sycophants at Move On.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Somehow I don’t think Balter could define what he means by “abandonment” any more clearly than this administration could define what it means by “victory.” As the very article Balter cites points out, the troops feel very let down by Congress, but hardly at all let down by their commanding officers, with their opinion of all other intermediating institutions spread out somewhere inbetween. Then there’s this:
“Despite concerns early in the war about equipment shortages, 58 percent said they believe they are supplied with the best possible weapons and equipment.”
Wow. How “abandoned” can you get.
As for my “selectively chosen” pieces of information, I drew quite broadly from the polling report — something Balter would notice if he bothered to take a look at it.
And as for acting out of fear being a form of “opportunism”, yeah, I guess that’s a way to look at it — IF you view a non-binding resolution against the surge as the best possible mirror of a public that’s so ambivalent that, on the one hand, they’ll say they oppose the surge, but on the other, that they oppose de-funding it. What’s a politician to do, faced with such voter confusion? It’s their job to represent their constituents however they can.
Oddly, you hate it when Bush bucks popular opinion, but you just can’t handle it when other politicians simply listen to Vox Populi, no matter how incoherent Vox Pop happens to be. Sounds like your ideal form of democracy would be one that’s a democracy only when YOU feel like it. Grow up, already: there IS no ideal form of democracy.
Panic-mongers stampeded us into this war. Other panic-mongers might stampede us out prematurely. We know that first move was ill-advised, and so might be any equal-and-opposite reaction. If most soldiers now think that Bush’s casus belli was garbage, but ALSO mostly think that the war is still worth something anyway, that’s an opinion I’ll take into acount in forming my own opinions. Where does it figure into yours? At all?
February 15th, 2007 at 8:57 am
If I wanted to be blunt, I would say that the difference between Turner and I is that he engages in the most convoluted intellectual obfuscation and sophistry to rationalize whatever he feels needs to be rationalized at any given moment, whereas I am interested in getting at the heart of the moral issues involved and leaving it at that. That is also why his posts are so amazingly long whereas mine are generally pretty short. That is how I see things, but I am sure he will see things differently and tell us at length why.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Look I’m afraid on the question of troop polling on the war Balter has the more up to date data. But even Turner’s polls, from a year ago, show a declining level of support from the military. There is also some indication that the degree of dissent goes up as you get into the career officer corps. As to the public position on the war, turner, has a point. The public is against the surge and wants out but is ambivalent about whether a cut-off of funds is a good idea. But I think that is because they need the right message since an overwhelming number of Americans oppose this war.
Now given this, and given the media ocean in which they swim (thats a little maoist language for jcummings) it is easy to see why Dems are nervous about bills like Feingold and Obama-Thomas-Murphy. Consider how Obama was blasted for saying that 3000 plus American Lives lost were a “waste” of brave men and women. And that statement – in my opinion a truism – was denounced as being anti-troop! So you know going in that the kool kids in punditville and thos “fair and balanced” FOX types are out to get you.
But I think a forthright position against this war as well as adventures in Iran would be received well if the Dems fought back at the anticipated onslaught they would receive. A good idea of how this would work is Obama’s answer to Australian PM Howard who said that the Bill Obama was pushing would aid Al Queda. Barak’s answer? Well if its that important mr Howard why not send another 20,000 Aussie troops instead of the measly 1400 you have now!
Ouch!
That is what needs to be done but it will require abandoning the advice of all those well paid DC consultants. If they want to see why I think this way all they will have to do is look at how well Hillary does following that advice.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:49 am
rlo, I think you make some excellent points. You also give examples of Obama at his best (Howard) and his worst (apologizing for the wasting lives remark) over the past week. The apology makes me nervous, for two reasons: First, he wasn’t being blasted all that hard, he caved quickly. And second, what he said was obviously true, those lives were wasted. That’s what Americans need to hear, that those lives were wasted and that we should not waste any more. Anything else plays into the idea that we should stay in Iraq so their “sacrifice” would not be in “vain.”
February 15th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I’m not a Maoist, though I believe that – previous to the power going to his head – as a revolutionary he was one of the finest. What he did in power is another story but “Combat Liberalism” among other texts is an important document.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Thanks for adding the smiley face jcummings because of course what Mao meant by liberalism and what we mean by it are two entirely different things–and what Europeans mean by it is a third thing on top of that. Anyone who wants to know what I mean meet me in the private chat room.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Private chat room? BTW I haven’t read that text in years, am not at all a Maoist, was using its name flippantly.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Yes, didn’t Marc give you the password for the private chat room when you started posting here regularly, jcummings?
February 15th, 2007 at 11:12 am
No. I feel so left out……;)
I guess I’m too loose of a cannon to be part of the elite few. Frankly I’m not that interested.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Gee, now I’m feeling left out too!
Was it something I said?
February 15th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I do hope everyone knows I’m kidding about the private chat room. That’s the problem with online communication, no inflection of the voice and smileys don’t always help either. But perhaps everyone is pulling MY leg!
February 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
You should have used the winking smiley face, not the grinning one
Oh…it seems like Chavez is being threatened by Al Qaida….wouldn’t that bring schadenfreude to some people!
February 15th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
five or six gabachos kicking around tired old ideas – wow! What an exciting place…
Get real – the Iraq war is gettin’ ready to become the Iraq/Iran war
February 15th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
PS: all the major Democratic candidates support the Iraq/Iran war.
You all may now continue jackin’ each other off while debating the difference between donkeys and elephants
Que Buena…
February 15th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Nothing in M Turner’s polling numbers convinces me that the American people have done an about-face and are now in support of escalation. I do agree that the introduction of a new rationale for the war (five years in)–preventing Iranian expansion–has probably slowed the “momentum” of the movement to end American troop involvement in Iraq.
Most people, I believe, see Bush as a diminished figure floundering around to justify a mistake. We need to remind ourselves and others that whatever else is true, our continuing troop involvement is costing American life, limb and coin. This is loss that can be avoided.
And Turner and others are flat wrong when they state that Bush’s veto prevents Congress from stopping the war. He cannot veto around a refusal to fund aspects of the war…that is the sole and unfettered power of the Congress. Bush could veto the military authorization bill not containing the funds for troop involvement in Iraq, but that wouldn’t add any funds back in. More to the heart, should the Senate decide to clarify its authorization for the invasion of Iraq, or to rescinde it, there is nothing Bush or the military could do (within its constitutional authority) to continue in an offensive posture in Iraq.
I didn’t see much of the House debate, but I did hear a number of Southern and Midwestern Republicans who called themselves conservatives flatly calling for withdrawal of troops. It was notable that they did not finesse or engage in nuance. Of course, they are not likely to see themselves as vulnerable to the “traitor” charge as Dems are. Not that leadership could not recruit primary opposition, but many, like floor leader Walter Jones, would almost certainly prevail.
So there is some reason to think, Marc, that Republicans could end the war (tho’ I’m not sure I know what you meant by that assessment.)
February 15th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Hombre Secreto must know of some “Major” Democratic candidates that support an “Iraq/Iran war” because Chris Dodd, Paul Vilsack, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Barack Obama all have stated otherwise. Even Hil has been leery and is opposed to any Iran action without Congressional approval.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
yo no soy el hombre secreto, gabachos wankistas, pero creo que se quien es.
they all support attacking Iran/Iraq, they all support whatever AIPAC says.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Well, no point in mincing words, the debate is appauling and while lemmings is a questionable metophore (all the congresspeople will leave Washington just fine) they are hardly covering themselves in glory.
What get’s called the “abandonment” arguement here is just old fashioned right wing bully boy stuff, and while no Dems are willing to stand up to it; I can almost forgive them given the equal lack of balls from the pundents. At the core of this madness, seems to me, is a crazed sentimentality conserning our brave boys and gals in uniform; who seem to have been awarded the sole voice in abitrating our foreign policy. What do THEY want to do about the war in Iraq? I couldn’t care less, and I’m not supposed to.
Indeed, as the Dems struggle to hang the disaster on Bush, and the Republicans lay the groundwork for dumping all the blame on the Iraqs; the press refuses to call out the major role the Military had in this fiasco. While a lot of honest people
in the Pentagon told Bush this was a terrible idea; it was easy enough for him to brush them aside and bring in fools who would tell him what he wanted to hear.
I loved hearing the Republican Vietnam Vets get up and warn America that bad things will happen when we pull out. That’s right Col. Stupid, thats why you should have saved the
crappola for the Kingdom Hall and avoided sended another
round of lambs to the slaughter.
Perhaps if one major Democrat (or even writer) would call out the right on it’s insistence on fighting World War III while handing the rich massive tax relief, doing nothing about alturnative energy, and basicly runing the struggle to save our way of life as the “go shopping” war; others would follow. All of which is to say, Balter is right about the Dems cowerdice and confusion. But it’s not so much that there is a lot of that going around, but rather, it seems to be the only game in town.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I was appalled to see that, in response to the GOP mantra of the Dems “abandoning” the troops, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer got up and said that there would be no cut-off of funds from the leadership. Well that’s just peachy keen! And a reason why I wanted Murtha as Majority Leader. Some were out of joint over his supposed “ethics” problems (a croc in my opinion) but he sure wouldn’t have given the store away!
And its so stupid since it is only a matter of time before Congress decides to use the power of the Purse to get this Administration’s attention and then Hoyer will have to climb down and it will be trumpeted as double-dealing by the Great and the Good and their Stenos in the Media.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
More on Jack Murtha. He’s come up with a pretty interesting way to get troops out. Some of you are aware that those “Surging” troops are going to Iraq without the proper equipment or without Armored vehicles. So Murtha will introduce a bill that will say that no troops can be in country that are not adequately trained or equiped according to the TOEs of the Army and Marines. If they are not combat ready trhey’ll have to be removed. And the legislation will specify the standards from the military’s own specs. In addition it will ban hold orders on troops DEROS (that’s when they’re supposed to come home). No more “stop-loss” orders used in stretching out deployments.. And there will be limits on deployment of NG and Reserve troops. It sounds like an ingenious way to go. After all voting against it means you don’t want the troops to have what they need to do the job, right? How does that support them?
February 15th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
We also have a winner of “Stupidest” Speech on the resolution and the award goes to Cong. Don Young (R-AK) who cited Lincoln in saying that any Congressman supporting measures that constrain the troops is aiding the enemy and should be hanged.
Only problem is Abe never said any such thing. A right wing blogger said it in 2003 and attributed it to the Railsplitter. Well maybe ATRIOS is right when he “Quotes” Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”:
“Don Young is the Third Stupidest “MotherF..ker in DC!”
Wonder who the first two are?
February 15th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I’d go for Douglas Feith and David Broder…
February 15th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“Nothing in M Turner’s polling numbers convinces me that the American people have done an about-face and are now in support of escalation.”
Nothing in the polling numbers I cite was intended to make that case. My point was: if you think anti-war sentiment is on some accelerating roll, think again. It’s not that simple.
Point taken about veto power. But the fact remains: this supposed “power of the purse” is actually pretty toothless for now. The mere *threat* of it could work to end US involvement in Vietnam, but only after a decade, tens of thousands of dead, Watergate, and, most important, GOP voter sentiment against the war on par with that of Dem voters. Those conditions are nowhere near being met for Iraq.
In reply to Balter: to be blunt, your posts are shorter because you you go beyond making everything as simple as possible, and make it *simpler* than possible.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
If Congress can declare war, Congress can declare it over. But this Democratic Congress won’t; they will instead undermine it in an attempt to cause maximum harm to its political adversaries and maximum deflection of anything that might threaten their power.
It’s the power, stupid. That’s all you need to know about the Democrats.
yours/
peter.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Thanks to Michael Crosby for injecting some factual realism into this discussion.
Many may wonder why I give Turner such a hard time. It is because if you look carefully at his long posts and cut through the incessant verbiage, they are almost inevitably intended to justify inaction and passivity. Mine may be simple in comparison, but that’s because I want to see something done. We’ve cogitated over the mistake in Iraq for four long years, time to get off the dime, not come up with rationalizations and justifications for inaction.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Having gotten myself well and truly hated here, let me offer a little more comic relief: the most frequent one-word descripts of George W. Bush.
Out of 740 respondents to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, here are the top 20 (numbers are for mentions, not percentages):
34 – Incompetent
25 – Arrogant
25 – Honest
19 – Good
19 – Idiot
13 – Integrity
13 – Leader
11 – Strong
11 – Stupid
10 – Ignorant
8 – Fair
8 – Determined
7 – Ass
7 – Selfish
6 – Confused
6 – Dishonest
6 – Persistent
6 – President
6 – Sincere
6 – Trying
—-
I guess we can all agree on “President”, anyway. “Trying” has possible two meanings, but probably falls short of consensus anyway.
47% used a negative word (presumably unprintable in some cases), 27% a positive word, 11% a neutral word, and 15% of respondents were rendered speechless by the question — which I’m inclined to credit toward the “negative word” category.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=304
February 16th, 2007 at 7:40 am
I’m just hoping the Senate actually debates the war and stops avoiding the issue altogether. The longer they stall, the longer it takes to find a solution.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:55 am
“That’s what Americans need to hear, that those lives were wasted and that we should not waste any more. Anything else plays into the idea that we should stay in Iraq so their “sacrifice†would not be in “vain.—
Would their lives be wasted if Iraq is stablized
to the point Iraqi forces can maintain it’s democratic gov’t for its people MB, and it’s associated benefits for us and the world MB? The gov’t Iraqis’ risked their lives for to vote for it? The reason the large majority of our troops believe they are risking their lives for? To ‘win’ this noble democratic struggle for the Iraqi people and plant a ray of hope for the rest of the largest majority of innocent people in the broader middle east?
All these lives lost and maimed are only wasted if the ‘good’ people lose, right MB. The reason the word ‘wasted’ is a political hot potato, is because it is only used by those who have raised their white flags, are willing to throw away all the scrafices made by our troops and the peaceful Iraqis, the good guys, who have been killed and maimed by the lowest class of thugs, mafia, gangs, extortionists, terrorist nutjobs, and power hungry Stalins, Hitlers, Mao’s would be dictators. The ‘bad’ guys.
You are willing now, and I’ll bet always have been, to give up to them, to surrender to them, to waste the scrafice of those and their you want to speak for.
You’re a loser and Americans just don’t like losers. The French, on the other hand, always have been, and I am just positing a wild guess, but you wouldn’t be living there today if Americans had not liberated them and Hitler were still running things……because he would not put up with your ‘democractic rights’ to run your mouth. The rights you so freely exercise and take totally ‘for granted’. The democratic right you and all loud, noisey, demonstrating, yelling clueless passivist are so totally willing to throw away for all others.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Very eloquent, Jim R. The only problem is that the US effort in Iraq has failed, and the people who caused it to fail are the ones you have been cheering on for the past four years. And you have been cheering them on because you were just as ignorant as they were about what the US was getting involved in, who the enemy was, and the nature of the society into which we sent our soldiers. Your viewpoint has lost, you are the loser, get used to it.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:24 am
No MB. You’d be living in the good old US if all those white crosses in Normandy were white flags instead. Those white crosses that represent death and killing and making war not love. That represent the failure for civilized people to talk, to compromise, to reason together with thugs.
Got to Normandy and take a look MB. Take a look and think what kind of world you would be living in now if you stay in France or anywhere in Europe. Yes you would be allowed to make all the love you ‘fucking’ want so Hitler could have your offspring to use against, to conquer the last vestige of freedom.
The last vestige of a democracy able to see beyond the scrafice required to keep and spread demcracies and freedom, while you are saving lives and fucking yourselves to death, literally and figuratively, for you short term, simple and grossly naive view of the world we live in.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:36 am
as of 2002 thru feb 11, 2007, there were 3,180 homicides in new york city.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Jim R to compare the current fiasco in Iraq with the sacrifices that American (and British and Canadian and, for that matter Russian) troops made in WWII is frankly obscene. I’ll leave aside the question as to which was the more justified cause but consider that in the global conflict of the forties the US Chain of Command included: FDR, Henry Stimson, George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower. That is what is known as “Adult Leadership” and that is what the current clowns in Washington have not even a nodding aquaintance with.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Jim R seems to be a bit obsessed with sex, as if too much of it is implicated in the decline of Western civilization. Or is he just obsessed with sex between certain people?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:07 am
“You’re a loser and Americans just don’t like losers.”
A fitting epitaph for the Bush Administration…
February 16th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Jim R – I would like for you to remind me of a single thing that Bush has put forward as a rationale for this war that has proven, in reality, to be worth the life of even ONE of our young soldiers. (A useful context would be to imagine that one fatal casualty as your kid…)
February 16th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Jim, if (when) our propped up “goverment” in Iraq folds, will you and your party be responsable for fighting the first, “no tax-no sacrifice” war? It would seem to me a doomed, loser approach to a national effort that could only be thought up by the kind of spoiled, self rightous Adult/childs who vote Republican…..
February 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Don Young may be the third stupidist Man in DC but the two Stupidest people outside of town are now obvious. I know that a lot of Christain Righties don’t like Evolution but now, it turns out, several aren’t all that keen of Copernicus either!
Representative Ben Bridges of the GA House and a Republican (natch!) sent a memo denouncing the Big Bang and the notion that the Earth goes round the sun. No it is held in place by a giant electromagnetplaced there by God and the idea that the universe is billions of years old or as big as science claims is part of the “Kaballah Evolution Conspiracy Theory” of “Jewish Pharisee” scientists intent on undermining the Old Testament (!) and destroying Christianity.
Not content with Georgia, Warren Chsum, head of the Texas House “Ways and Means” Committee got a copy and promptly distributed it to all his colleagues.
Now it seems the two good old boys are in some trouble since some “Pharisees” from the ADL saw a copy and complained. They both now claim they never saw the document.
As someone over at KOS wrote, its days like these that make you “Really, really, miss Molly Ivins.”
February 16th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
so, bush is a liar but clinton isn’t??
“one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is the bottom line” President Clinton Feb 4, 1998
“if saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. we want to seriously diminish the threat posed by iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program” President Clinton, Feb 17, 1998
“iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here. for the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greratest security threat we face” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983″ Sandy Burger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998
“we urge you, after consulting with congress, and consistent with the US Consititution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs:” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Leven (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), and others on Oct 9, 1998
“saddam hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Dec 17, 1998
“hussein has chosen to spend his money on building wweapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies: Madeline Albright, Nov 10, 1999
so, all after bush came is was a lie: and all before him was the truth ?
February 16th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
reg writes: “Jim R – I would like for you to remind me of a single thing that Bush has put forward as a rationale for this war that has proven, in reality, to be worth the life of even ONE of our young soldiers.”
I’m sure the best he’ll be able to offer is “we fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here.” A line that many families who have lost a child over there will recite, believe it or not. They truly believe Iraq is an issue of national defense, among other things.
“(A useful context would be to imagine that one fatal casualty as your kid…) ”
Useful in some sense. You might want to read this:
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/070216_genocide_interest.html
—
“We go all out to save a single identified victim, be it a person or an animal, but as the numbers increase, we level off,” Slovic said. “We don’t feel any different to say 88 people dying than we do to 87. This is a disturbing model, because it means that lives are not equal, and that as problems become bigger we become insensitive to the prospect of additional deaths.”
[....]
Slovic previously studied this phenomenon by presenting photographs to a group of subjects. In the first photograph eight children needed $300,000 to receive medical attention in order to save their lives. In the next photograph, one child needed $300,000 for medical bills.
Most subjects were willing to donate to the one and not the group of children.
—-
We comfort ourselves with the idea that we truly believe every single human life is equally, and infinitely, valuable. But that is more preached than practiced. I’d like to see a poll that poses one of the more serious issues we now face in the following way.
“You believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and that several serious mistakes were made in the occupation as well. However, if there were even 1 chance in 3 that staying in Iraq would prevent the outbreak of greater violence that might take millions of lives, would you be in favor of persisting?”
The above-linked report suggests a truly odd paradox: if you gave the pollees on photograph of one “collateral damage” child victim of the violence, they’d be more likely to say “yes” than if you showed them an entire wall of such photos.
You can see something like this psychology at work when Michael Balter, out of a desire to “do something”, out of some supremely self-assured “moral” imperative, posts lists of American casualties. We don’t know these people, but their names sound like those of kids we went to high school with, and the names of their hometowns often ring a bell — perhaps we’ve seen those towns on highway signs, or even driven through on of them once. There’s more in that for us to relate to than a news report that says 55 were killed by a terrorist’s bomb in a market square in Iraq, while another report says it was 65. 55, 65 — what’s the difference? Maybe if I go to the polls in the next election, and push the right buttons along with enough other people, I can get this kind of numbingly bad news pushed down to page 10, or even out of the paper entirely because it will no longer be very newsworthy if we’re no longer involved as a nation. And I’ll feel good about myself, because I will have saved *American* lives. If it turns out that my vote was part of letting the fuse continue to burn on some bigger bomb, well … nobody knows how I voted. And it was all other people’s fault anyway, right?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:00 am
“You can see something like this psychology at work when Michael Balter, out of a desire to “do somethingâ€, out of some supremely self-assured “moral†imperative, posts lists of American casualties.”
Turner has now referred several times to my posting of the names of the dead, in a context and with the implication that I care more about American deaths than Iraqi deaths. This is nonsense, and I think most other people here know it. Nowhere are the names of the Iraqi dead listed that I know about, and if they are, I will link to them here every day as well–just let me know. I post the names because sometimes facing squarely the death of one real person with a name is the most effective way to show the human cost of a war. I do not believe that the American presence in Iraq is saving Iraqi lives, or else I would be in favor of our staying. I hope that is clear enough to prevent Turner from misrepresenting my views in the future.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Grouch demonstrates that politcians of all stripes can be wrong, if not craven. But he forgets one important detail. Not only did Clinton NOT invade Iraq he also did not fund that sill “Iraq Liberation Act.” It amazes me that people who are alsways criticizing the Clenis for empty gestures don’t recognize this as one of the emptiest.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Balter writes: “I do not believe that the American presence in Iraq is saving Iraqi lives, or else I would be in favor of our staying.”
Well, good. That means we might have a test of this statement coming up over the next six months or so. If the surge significantly reduces the deaths of noncombatants in Baghdad (even if it also increases our casualty rate somewhat), we should see Michael Balter reverse his position on the war and call for a dramatic troop increases to replicate something like this success wherever possible elsewhere in Iraq.
I haven’t paid a whole lot of attention to the details of the surge (which it turns out is closer to Kagan’s 50,000 than we we given to believe). I’m now giving it a 60% chance of becoming something that the Bush administration can deceptively portray as at least a qualified success, and about a 40% chance of actually being a true success by any objective measure. Much hinges on whether Sunni Arab insurgents and the Maliki government respond by showing more willingness to deal. Much also hinges on whether the Bush administration would just as soon “reploy”, only *apparently* under pressure from Congress, while still walking away with enough of a “coulda-won” case to be able to castigate the Dems for “losing Iraq” in 2008.
rlc writes: “… criticizing the Clenis …”
Whoa, dude, did you really just write that? It makes a former First Couple sound like the result of botched sex-reassignment surgery.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
richard is worse than a enema. did monica swallow? it’s okay for clinton to be wrong but not bush? remember that clinton did bomb (actually cruise missles) sudan which did prove out that they were not manufacturing wmd; all to draw attention away from monica swallowing or not. would that qualify as an “empty gesture” ?
and please do not forget the “W-80″ debacle, whereas china stole our (usa) thermonuclear documents…..we ain’t heard the last of that yet. that was also during billy’s tenure. not to mention sandy stealing top secret documents, supposedly destroying them, and getting off with a “slap on the wrist”…..if a regular grunt had done that he would be serving life at hard labor at leavenworth.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
90322ee28d8d…
90322ee28d8da5cc193c…
March 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
You are a very smart person!
March 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Do you guys have a recommendation section, i’d like to suggest some stuff
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
This advice is really going to help, thanks.