Real World

Look, I'm not going to explain to you the process which took place 4 years ago, prior to the war. We all know you have an agenda, and you obviously feel that everything was a big lie, and that GW was attacking cuz Saddami tried to kill his daddy. When a lawyer goes to trial, or presents a case, he presents a wide range of reasons why he feels someone is guilty or innocent. When someone sells a car, they point to a number of different reasons the car should be purchased. You obvioulsy have your mind made up. We all know how the UN works, which is to say it doesn't. At any rate, if this were an actual discussion, I'd be happy to help enlighten you. I get the feeling though, that no matter what I type, you're mind was made up a long time ago.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Harry Boy

Why do the Bush Haters always ignore the fact that the "Other Bush Haters" (democRATS) also wanted to go to war, they voted for the war, when no WMD's were found did they really think America would just leave and abandon the Iraqi people to the Savages of Iraq and the Terrorists.

I thought these Liberal Democrats were the party of kindness aren't they the party that "cares" the saviours of humanity, they love Whales & Trees do they not care what happens to the Iraqi human beings, why for Gods Sake, they deplore the "Death Penalty" (except beheading), do they really want America to abandon those poor women and children in Iraq to those f-cking butchers.
Oh Jesus help us.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

PressCoverage

some, not all, voted for the war based solely upon on your president's and the Secretary of State's blatant falsehoods and "high dubious" allegations... stop repeating the same nonsense over and over... and buy a clue.

Real World

What's comical Harry is that all the clowns in office, or the VAST majority of them voted for the war. They chose the polls, which some people in here actually feel our government is bound to lead by, over common sense. Now, after all these politicians voted for action cuz the people supported it, they are saying they were lied to, or they were mislead, yada, yada, yada...

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PressCoverage

it's the same tired broken record over and over and over from the war apologists... their heroes' lies are ok, because half the Democrats fell for it... it's never renounced, they never want accountability, there's never any shame.... if a Dem-controlled administration perpetrated these same lies to the public leading to a conflict spiralling out of control, you can bet there'd be an independent investigation, calls for heads on spikes... and perhaps even an assassination by now...

behold: GOP thinking on a pedastal

i do find it striking that in half a dozen threads the past week, not a single Bush Leaguer here has addressed the FACT list of lies put forth by their regime, nor acknowledged the FACT that the administration knew ahead of time their allegations were highly dubious at best, completely fabricated at worst.... and yet the regime still used this bad intel again and again in international speeches and talking points on TV, etc.

wistahpatsfan

That's not true (except for the clowns part). The people were split on the war as we were amassing troops for the invasion. I have a weekly card came that I used to get to religiously. During that time, it was almost always 3 for and 3 against. No one had any doubt about their position, yet we were able to play cards and be friends.

The notion that the congressional vote to authorize the chimp reflected the people's opinion of invading Iraq is ludicrous. That would be like saying .02% of the people were against it. The truth is that most of these Congressmen are bought and paid for by corporate interests, the same ones that have interests in promoting the war. This is a purely corporate war that has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or Islamofascists and everything to do with securing the interests of those corporations. Besides, these people in Congress have no interest in protecting Americans from anything unless they can parlay it into votes for re-election, and a "yes" vote on authorization was the safest and easiest thing they could have done. That, and it helped their stock portfolio.

Real World

I say that because the spread was 60-40 prior to the invasion in 2003. No one wanted to look "unpatriotic", or weak, by not supporting action. I remember it quite distinctly. It wasn't 90-10, I know that, but there was a push for "toughness". Principles would have gone a long way, but GW was super high in the favorability polls, and who wanted to go against him back then? Finger in the wind as opposed drawing a line in the sand.

We agree in general anyhow. Politicians, for various reasons, don't care about the people. Some might, but those tend to be the ones you never see or hear on TV.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

wistahpatsfan

I compressed this from the Wickapedia:

January 03 - A poll conducted at the time by The New York Times and CBS News released showed approximately 2 out of 3 respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately. Two months prior, most polls showed about two-thirds of those polled supporting military action.

About 60% of those polled also supported, if necessary, the use of military action to remove Saddam. Most polls showed that support for the invasion, depending on how the question is phrased, was at between 55-65%

This is interesting: A consistent pattern in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion was that higher percentages of the population supported the impending war in polls that offered only two options (for or against) than in polls that broke down support into three or more options given (distinguishing unconditional support for the war, opposition to the war even if weapons inspectors do their job, and support if and only if inspection crews are allowed time to investigate first).

The Gallup poll found that 67% of those who watched Bush’s justification speech felt that the case had been made, from 47% just prior the speech. However, many more Republicans than Democrats watched the speech, skewing the real numbers. An ABC news poll found the percentage remaining at about 40%.

February 03 - Following Powell's at the UN, most polls showed increased support for the invasion. Support for the invasion jumped 4 points. Only 27 percent opposed military action. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%. A Gallup poll showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11.
March 03 - A Gallup poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war

April 03 - The Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War, despite finding no evidence of chemical or biological weapons.

CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found.

May 03 - A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.

...Amazing how easily the public is swayed by charismatic authority figures in times of alleged crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...vasion_of_Iraq

Real World

Wistah. I remember the times pretty well. I remember telling people that GW was shrewder than most were giving him credit for. You highlight of the poll for 9/11 and Saddam is magnificent. Wheneever people toss polls at me as a measurable means of dictating policy, I always love to point at that. The public, overall, is dumb. It's why leaders should "hear" polls so to speak, but should never listen to them.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897