Don't dare question their patriotism.
By Jon Sandor Posted in Spotlight Blogs | War — Comments (139) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fox News released a new poll measuring attitudes on President Bush, Iraq, and the planned "surge" in troops. The results are interesting.
When asked: “Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?” (Q 19), only 63% of respondents answered yes. By party affiliation, 79% of Republicans said yes, as did 63% of independents. Only 51% of Democrats said that they want his plan to succeed, while 34% came right out and said they want his plan to fail. One wonders how many of the 51% were simply being discrete about their feelings, since its remarkable that anyone would come right out and state their desire for failure.
I don't know how much more obvious they can make their desire for America to be defeated in Iraq. Can we question their patriotism yet?
That are Republican, Democrat, and Independent
I be it was a poorly written message.
It is one of the least complicated and least confusing questions in the entire poll. It's not much of a stretch either with the number of crazies - like the loose change crowd - there are out there. I imagine nearly all of those people would answer 'NO' to that question.
Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
| Yes | No | DK | |
| Total | 63 | 22 | 15 |
| Dems | 51 | 34 | 15 |
| Reps | 79 | 11 | 10 |
| Ind | 63 | 19 | 17 |
Doesn't get much simpler than that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'd guess most of them heard "Do you Think..." instead of "Do you want..."
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
"Want" doesn't sound anything like "Think" and with how short and simple the question is, they couldn't have forgotten what was being asked by the time they answered it. It seems just as likely that they heard "Rosie O'Donnell's new line of lingerie" where the pollster said "Iraq plan."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Most of the people who said they don't want the plan to succeed probably said so because they don't want the plan carried out. Its a dumb question because it assumes something in the future that is highly contested and politically divisive. There's no way to good a good answer with that question.
In fact if the people listen to the question and answer it as stated, the only correct answer is YES they want it to succeed. To answer no is to wish that more evil will transpire in the world....
I'm sure that some of the people anwering really heard the question and really answered that the WANT the US to fail. Those people really are Unpatriotic (at best) and at worst active traitors. There is no other description for this group of people (well I have some descriptive terms for them, but those will get me banned from RedState).
But I've found that many (most) people don't answer questions that you are actually asking, they answer questions that they would ask if they were in your place. If I were on the receiving end of a poll, I would EXPECT them to ask if I "think" the plan will succeed. If I weren't paying real close attention, I would probably answer that question instead of the question about "wanting" it to succeed. In my case, the answer would be the same, but that's a whole nuther topic...
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Where in all that is holy did that come from ? I could see DK, not really but its conceivable but failure means our troops die.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
when you need to believe that all of your opponents are un-patriotic.
Of course you could read that question to mean do you want the Presidents plan to deploy 20,000 troops to succeed. In other words, these peole are saying they don't want the 20,000 troops deployed.
I know you want to believe the worst of your countrymen - that is what makes you so partiotic - so I am sure that you don't want to bother with what the respondents attended.
That just about is the most convoluted interpretation of a straightforward question-and-answer that I have ever heard.
You and Senator Kerry should throw a "nuance party," where you come up with statements which sound nothing like what you claim they mean, and then call the rest of us "too stupid to get it."
Come on - give me a break. It's the same meme: "Patriotism is unquestionable! Even when we say exactly what we mean - that we want the President's war strategy to fail - you can't hold us to it!"
Today's leftists are the absolute worst I've ever seen - hands down - for absolutely screaming blood murder for having what they say acknowledged and then attributed to them. If you don't mean it, DON'T. SAY. IT.
That is all.
The question assumes a hypothetical in the future (that Bush will deploy 21,000 troops to Iraq). So it seems pretty clear that at least some of the people who don't want the troops deployed would say they don't want the plan to succeed. If the troops aren't deployed, then you guessed it, the plan wouldn't succeed.
I guess the old standby "it was only a botched joke" excuse wouldn't work for this one.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
How simple is that question? Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? It doesn't say, "Do you think that the Iraq plan announced by President Bush last week will succeed?" It doesn't ask, "Do you want the Iraq plan announced by President Bush last week to happen?" It simply asks if your endgame desire is success, regardless of how likely or unlikely you think it is.
Your side of the aisle seems to want us to take you as intellectual creatures who see the nuances and the gray area of each issue, and I will say there is nuance to almost everything. But to contend that there is nuance in, "Do you want us to succeed, yes or no?", shows us that you can't even comprehend black and white. And you expect us to take you seriously?
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Question 21.
Do you think most Democrats want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed and lead to a stable Iraq or do they want it to fail and for him to have to withdraw U.S. troops in defeat?
42% of Democrats thought that most Democrats want the plan to succeed and lead to a stable Iraq.
38% of Democrats thought that most Democrats want the plan to fail and for Bush to have to withdraw in defeat.
67% of Republicans thought most Democrats wanted failure/withdrawal.
42% of independents thought most Democrats wanted failure/withdrawal. Only 30% thought the Democrats wanted success and a stable Iraq. You guys aren't kidding anyone.
I look forward to seeing what the graduates of the Glenn Greenwald School of Creative Reading come up with in response to this.
...that D respondents are as desirous of success as the average American (15%), and that Independent respondents are less so (17%), making them the "least patriotic", by your definition.
There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
...question the patriotism of the 11% of republicans that want the surge to fail? How about the 19% of independents? Are these remarkable?
All in all, I think that it is a poorly-worded survey question, i.e. I personally don't want Bush's surge plan to succeed because I don't want it to happen in the first place.
Doesn't make me any less patriotic.
There are crazy self identified Republicans and Independents out there. The Democrats don't have the monopoly on that crowd.
If you read the actual poll you'll see they had the chance to make their feelings about the surge known over and over again before that question came up. It is what it is. Can't blame it on the question.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There are crazy self identified Republicans and Independents out there. The Democrats don't have the monopoly on that crowd.
And perhaps more Democrats are letting their crazy come out because of their political views.
Or maybe people didn't understand what the question meant. IOW, perhaps those 19% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats were confusing the political with the reality.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
..."making your feelings known" has no place in a survey (at least a good one). Surveys are to collect raw, cold, unfeeling data, that's it. They aren't personal essays. Inferences, stretches of logic and any remotely ambiguous questions will inevitably produce sketchy results.
How about this for the question:
Regardless of your personal views of Bush's proposed surge plan in Iraq (and whether or not you think that that plan is the correct way to go), would you want Bush's surge plan to succeed if implemented?
I guarantee you the results would come out drastically different.
I meant answering several questions specifically about the troop surge. There was no essay question. This was question number 19 on the poll and question number 6 about the troop surge. If they simply wanted a chance to say they don't support the surge, they already got it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...to say they were against the troop surge.
That's the feeling now.
More troops... no.
And so when asked whether they wanted it to succeed, they said NO again.
But if you think 49% of liberals want soldiers to die... you don't know any actual liberals.
It isn't 49%, it's 34%. And that is of Democrats, not liberals. And it has nothing to do with "wanting soldiers to die." That wasn't the question. The question was do you want us to succeed in Iraq? I have no doubt that most of the people who said "no" don't associated failure in Iraq with lots of soldiers dying.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...given that you get that they're not rooting for more dead American soldiers that the poll question is too nuanced by half.
Not wanting it to succeed could mean not wanting it to ever happen.
Not wanting it to succeed could mean wanting the Democratic House and Senate to stand up and say no.
Ask this question: Given the possibility that peace and stability could be brought to Iraq, would you want that to happen.
And it'll be 99.5% YES, .5% whackjobs.
Not wanting it to succeed could mean not wanting it to ever happen.
I guess in Liberal Land words can mean what ever you want them to mean. Do you ever look and listen to what you say?
Lets pretend we're back in high school. Not much of a reach here. Consider the following question and answer.
Q: Do you want Uncle Joe's heart operation to succeed?
A: No.
Question for the class. Does the word "No" indicate a desire for Uncle Joe's heart operation not to succeed? Or does it perhaps suggest a desire that Uncle Joe not have an operation at all? What is the probable outcome for Uncle Joe if he does not have his operation?
This will not be graded on a curve.
...(if Uncle Joe = Iraq) is that if Uncle Joe does not have the operation (operation = surge) is that Uncle Joe (Iraq) will start to heal, as opposed to say, dying on the table (falling further into chaos).
Again, you are unwilling to see ANYTHING other then continued occupation as success, so you are willing to let Joe die on the table as opposed to get better back at home.
...the more perfect it feels.
All the doctors are saying don't have the operation... a majority of the family is saying don't have the operation... even the patient isn't sure he wants the operation.
But the operation... which will only further weaken an already dying subject... the operation is a'coming.
We already TRIED letting Uncle Joe go home and heal there (anyone remember Vietnam or Gulf War 1?).
It failed Miserably Both Times.
In fact, it failed 80 years and more ago, too. Remember WW1? Letting Uncle Joe go home to heal only brought about WW2.
Letting Uncle Joe go home to heal has failed EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Get that through your THICK head.
Whereas keeping him on the table and Finishing the surgery has WORKED every single time (disclaimer: must actually complete surgery, keeping him on the table with no forward action [read: Vietnam] also fails).
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Duh?
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
This is not about Iraq, which you are obsessed with. It is about the ability to understand a simple question and answer written in plain English.
As I point out elsewhere, you liberals have the one answer which you trot out for every question, even when its completely inappropriate.
Do you want the sun to shine tomorrow?
"Troops out of Iraq!"
Do you want world peace?
"Troops out of Iraq!"
All right. How was your day?
"Troops out of Iraq!"
I see. Well, I sure hope what we're trying in Iraq works, don't you?
"Troops out of Iraq!"
It's odd that the troops don't share your fervor for getting them out, isn't it?
"Troops out of Iraq!"
.....
fade to black.
The question asked if you want the President's plan (ie. the surge) to succeed, not whether you want America to succeed in Iraq.
The question should have said: "Assuming that President Bush deploys 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, do you want his plan to succeed?" Or something along those lines.
Otherwise the question is just gives ambiguous answers because some respondents assumed the plan would be carried out, but others used it to voice opposition to the surge.
I personally don't want Bush's surge plan to succeed
I'm sure you don't.
Doesn't make me any less patriotic.
I'd be interested in hearing you define "patriotic", because I'm pretty darn sure that wanting our military efforts to fail does in fact make you unpatriotic, by any sane meaning of the word.
"I don't want our miliary plan in North Africa to succeed, this so-called "Operation Torch". But that doesn't make me unpatriotic!"
I don't care if the presidents plan was to send in a platoon of polar bears, I would want it to succeed. The point is there is a difference between wanting it to succeed and thinking it will. A true patriot wants to win wars not lose them.
This country is weakened every day because of the democrats unwillingness to stand behind the president on the war. I don't care if they bashed him on everything else but to put your desire for political power ahead of the well being of your country is sickening. If we had a united government then this thing would be close to wrapping up. Truth is that many democrats hate this country because of all of the percived "evils" it has. What they would like is for the UN to govern us because in thier belief the UN is the benchmark for moral and ethical behavior.
Bottom line...I don't know if the surge will work but I sure as heck going to be praying it does.
You nailed it.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Gamecock, DeVine conservative Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
That is a vacuous comment, to say the least. Speaking as a libertarian who loves this country and considers our Constitution one of the greatest documents ever written by the hand of man, I (needless to say) disagree with a lot of what the standard contemporary liberal stands for, but also, frankly, for a lot of what the contemporary Republican stands for; so much of what we've seen in the past six years cannot reasonably be called "conservative," let alone libertarian. Saying that any and every self-identified "liberal" lacks patriotism is as stupid as it is ugly.
That said, it's difficult for me to understand how almost a third of Democrats (or for that matter 11% of Republicans) can say they don't want our latest Iraq policy to succeed. I would question their intelligence in reading the question, though, before I'd question the patriotism of someone about whom I know only their answer to one poll question.
On the war issue: I agree that Hagel and the Dems lack any decent alternative plan for Iraq, but I can't say I have any particular expectation of "victory" from our illustrious CIC's "surge." We should have surged three years ago, when it might have mattered. You folks who tell yourself we're going to turn the situation in Iraq around with another 20,000 combat troops need to do a little more reading. We need another 100,000, at least. At this point, frankly, we'd need a draft. We all know we aren't going to get anywhere near the resources we'd need to pacify that country and control what is now a deeply ingrained counter-insurgency. If there is anyone running this war who has any clue what he's doing, it's General Petreaus, who is now in charge, and who wrote the latest version of the Army's counter-insurgency manual. In which, ahem, he outlines all the ways our strategy has been cockeyed all along, and in which he lays out numbers for how many combat troops you need per populace. Numbers which the President's "surge" don't even come close to meeting.
And you blame "liberals" for this disaster? I'd laugh if I weren't already crying.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I don't think there's a straw man in my post, nor do I think there's any sort of response in yours. I'm speaking to the posters on this thread, and plenty of similiar threads here, who believe this absurd "surge" has any chance of succeeding, and/or who blame the war's obvious looming failure on Democrats, liberals, the MSM, etc. My point is that you're wrong: the surge will fail, anyone who knows anything about this war and counter-insurgency in general knows this already, and blaming the coming failure on anyone other than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al is simple delusion and/or intellectual dishonesty. Address the point, please, rather than laughing it off by pretending I don't have one.
And then read your response, trying to figure out which of your points might actually have something to do this posting, then come back. I'll give you a hint. Jon didn't say "all liberals are unpatriotic" anywhere and this story has nothing to do with whether you think Iraq in general or the surge in particular was a good idea.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I did stray off-topic somewhat. But let's be honest; there is a general consensus here, and on other conservative sites I frequent, that we could win this war if only those damn liberals weren't sapping our spirit. (Note the comment in this thread that President Bush, laughably, is the only man standing between America and defeat.) Speaking as someone who supported the invasion of Iraq, I find this sort of delusion, four years down the road, depressing and truly dangerous.
There's a lot of dissatisfaction with the administration on this issue. Not for the same reasons as the liberals, but it is certainly there. Only 62% of Republicans, according to this same poll, support sending more troops to Iraq.
But this is all off topic. If you want to create a blog about Iraq in general or the conduct of the war, feel free.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I would question their intelligence in reading the question, though, before I'd question the patriotism of someone...
So its not that those Democratic folks who answered the question are unpatriotic, its simply that they are too stupid too understand the question in the first place?
Well, when it comes to the patriotism of most of the Dems I've ever known (or read about), I'd say you've just about nailed it. Modern Dems, in general, ARE too stupid to even understand the concept of American patriotism, and therefore obviously the question was too confusing for them from the get go.
Patriotism for the Dems is Mr. John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry (they voted for him), the guy who helped cut the legs out from under our troops in Nam, and who has done his level best to cut the legs out from under our troops in Iraq as well.
People have to be able to understand the ideal in question before they can live by or have that ideal...
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
So 21% of Republicans are traitors and 37% of independents are traitors.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The "Don't know" crowd might just be clueless.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Well personally if you don't know whether you want the plan to succeed doesn't seem to be all that different from not wanting it to succeed.
But whatever.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Some people are focused on more important things, like who Brad Pitt is dating or who is going to win the next American Idol and don't get interested in a Presidential election until a week out. There will always be that crowd.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
of the Idependents are actually liberal Democrats who habitually lie about their true party affiliation to skew poll results.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
my mind is how someone that wants us to lose or doesn't care, also wants to be deemed to be patriotic. Well, they may be patriotic, but not as it relates to the nation of The United States of America, circa 2007 and from 1776-2007. They may be patriotic towards another actually existing nation, or, as is more likley, some amorphous "international community" or, a version of the United States that they wish existed but which never has and never will.
See GC's MSM Debut Column in The Charlotte Observer
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The Minority Report
"I support the troops but I also want to see them defeated on the field of battle" may be the new rallying cry. It's a little bit long to put on a bumper sticker, though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
" I Support our troops, Even if they are ignorant, lower class, baby killing imperialist tools."
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
They really need to adopt a larger standard format for bumper stickers. Maybe Congress can do something to force those fat cat bumper sticker tycoons into giving everyone bigger stickers that adequately explain their positions?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
on your post concerning questioning their patriotism. The only ones whom you might dare to question their patriotism are the ones who answer 'don't know'. The ones who answer 'no' are patriotic to another. The ones who answer 'yes' are patriotic to the USA. Ward Churchill and Sean Hannity are both patriots who are loyal to different nations. I question Paris Hilton's patriotism because I do not know who she is loyal to.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I infuriate people a lot post-911, because I have this gift of easily discerning and identifying unpatriotic statements. Its visceral. I'm sure most people have this gift. But most have been trained like seals by the PC MSM and the Left to dare not ever question anyone's patriotism lest one be ostracized as an unsophisticated Boob. DeVine Gamecock has no such fear, and so, he makes people mad. Yawn, Roosters prefer clarity in Dawns, Hens and Patriotism.
Because I am sure when I hear unpatriotic speech and that most others do as well, I am convinced that if the GOP members of Congress would dare to publicly denounce unpatriotic speech every time they hear it, that it would resonate with Americans and transform the country. It would send the message that the PC speech code is no longer operative. that we are free to openly love this country and shame those that would embolden enemies to fight on and kill more of our troops.
I would compare the ease with which unpatriotic speech can be discerned with being able to distinguish mothers and non-mothers with children.
read it all
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/9fc7ced6-20d6-4874-a8e8-f04b46ff99b9
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer
...want American soldiers to die in Iraq, do you?
Or that, were real stability possible, we don't want a peaceful Iraq?
Look, I'm sure there are some whackjobs... one tenth of a percent of people who call themselves liberals... that actually HATE AMERICA... and to them I say call yourself something else please, but on the whole we liberals now hear Iraq and just say NO regardless of the wording of the question.
Just... no more.
Look, the current meme is "Democrats don't have a plan to win" which is a way of FORCING Democrats and Liberals to either support keeping/adding troops or to look like we don't want to win.
There is another possibilty and that is we now define winning under entirely different terms.
Winning is now getting as many American soldiers out alive and pursuing a policy which will turn down the tension in the region.
Winning is admitting that we cannot nation build and that we should simply call the removal of Saddam the best we can do for now.
Winning is getting us out of a civil war that 21,000 troops are not going to stop.
99.90% of us love America just as much as you do.
We just have a different vision as to how to save it.
Winning is losing, is what you're saying.
Can you tell me me something? You or any other liberal on this thread.
What words or actions can possibly be made which you would consider unpatriotic. We are seeing here that you don't consider wanting our miltary efforts to fail to be unpatriotic, so I'm curious as to what, if anything, rises to that level in your eyes.
"I hate America"
"I hope American soldiers die on the battlefield."
"I'm glad about what happened on 9/11!"
It ain't too hard to come up with.
Here's the problem with the way you've framed this argument: you have decided that we MUST send these troops and that we MUST stay in Iraq and that not doing A and B above constitutes losing.
Well, those are false choices.
Liberals believe that winning is now LEAVING, which is not losing, but understanding the state of things and protecting our interests long term.
But if you phrase the question, assuming that STAYING is the only form of winning, well then of course you will get exactly what you've set out to find.
Many people are torn by their political beliefs. Of course they want to see the United States succeed but their belief that the War in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster is so entrenched that they can't really grok a way for the war to be a success.
So when they hear Fox news call them and say "Do you want the President's plan to succeed in Iraq" they reflexively say "No". Not because they want the plan to fail but because they want the President, whom they bitterly oppose to fail.
I can't say I care much for the question. It would have been relatively easy to frame the question to be about the War in Iraq and not the President but the question intertwines both.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Normally the most circumspect of commenters.
Not because they want the plan to fail but because they want the President, whom they bitterly oppose to fail.
Which is what we've been telling you for years. The Democrats could care less about Iraq. The only thing that matters to them is making Bush fail, and they will will pay any price and bear any burden in the pursuit of that Holy Grail. A US military defeat and our enemies emboldened is a small price to pay for something they crave more than any junkie ever craved heroin.
I realize it is only Democrats that put party over country. I can't imagine the Republicans ever doing such a thing.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Now you admit that the Democrats are placing party before country. This is more honesty than I've seen from you in the last year. What's going on?
Of course you feel obliged to do the moral equivalence bit and imply that the Republicans do it too, though you can't think of examples.
And if sending 21,000 troops to Iraq... putting the total troop level ONLY where it was less than a year ago... is not putting saving face in front of country, I don't know what is.
Flyerhawk acknowledges that the Democrats are playing dirty. He justifes it to himself by thinking the Republicans do it also. We're old pals, hawk and me.
The "insurgents" don't seem to have gotten the message about what a joke this move is. They are reported to be bugging out of Baghdad as fast as their little legs can carry them.
Should not a poster with your handle employ a little reason from time to time? Because I'm still waiting on your first solid comment.
They're not afraid of 21,00 0 more troops as there were very recently ALREADY 21,000 more troops.
Or to pull a Kerry, these 21,000 troops are there to replace the 21,000 troops that were pulled out so that there could soon be 21,000 more troops.
Liberals believe that winning is now LEAVING, which is not losing
This is a novel theory of military affairs. It means we did not lose the Vietnam War. And Russia did not lose in Afghanistan. And Britain did not lose in America in that "War of Independence". They all LEFT, but they did not lose.
And nobody in the world is going to observe the US leaving Iraq and think they lost. No, they will all nod their heads and merely comment that we left.
And you yourself along with all your friends will welcome the troops home as heros and congratulate Bush on his successful handling of the war. Because after all, it's not a defeat as you define it. Right?
if you phrase the question, assuming that STAYING is the only form of winning
The question as phrased simply asks if you want the US to succeed in Iraq.
You want to say "No, I don't want the US to succeed in Iraq" but you also want to spin this as being brave and patriotic. It can't be done, so you expend all this effort rewriting the question into one that was not asked but to which you can give the answer you like.
Which sounds like every liberal I've ever met on a message board.
Q: Whats the capital of Hungary?
A: [Long anti-Bush diatribe]
Q: Name the noble gases.
A: [Long anti-Bush diatribe]
Q: Discuss the economic ramifications of the introduction of the potato into Europe.
A: {Long anti-Bush diatribe]
It does not matter what the question is for you guys. Every question is an invitation not to think but to tell everyone what is really on your mind: Bush sucks!
Do you know any other answers?
...because if that were not true, you'd take my statement at face value.
Try this simple test: If God came down tomorrow and said that the troop surge would fail 100%, would you agree to bring the troops home?
As to the poll question, again it's a mess, so I'll create my own:
If it were possible for peace and prosperity tomorrow in Iraq would you want it to happen?
Yes.
If George Bush would suggest troop deployment tomorrow, would you support him?
Yes.
It aint about George Bush OTHER THAN THE FACT that he's the one calling the shots and the shots have turned out to be disasterous.
Here is the question;
Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
How could the question get any clearer than that? Please try to explain how it tricked you.
It aint about George Bush OTHER THAN THE FACT that he's the one calling the shots and the shots have turned out to be disasterous.
Yeah, yeah. I'm a big ole meany for saying that you are obsessed with attacking Bush, when the only reason you are attacking him is that EVERYTHING IS ALL HIS STUPID FAULT!!! Why can't I be reasonable and understand that?
I didn't get polled.
It didn't TRICK anyone.
They just weren't saying what you want them to be saying.
They are saying NO MORE IRAQ, not "Gosh, I hope there's death and carnage on the battlefield."
They are saying NO MORE SURGE, not "I can't wait to see what terrible thing is visited on us next."
They are just saying, "No thank you".
Again, you keep ignoring my version of the question:
If it were possible for peace and prosperity in Iraq tomorrow, would you be in favor?
99.5 Yes, .5 No.
And I'm tired of playing with you in your Alice in Wonderland world where words mean whatever you want them to mean.
They just weren't saying what you want them to be saying.
You people do not comprehend the English langauge. The question was what it was. The answers were what they were.
You can play all the goofy games you like trying to pretend that people answered as they did because they were actually responding to some other question, not the one written in words on the page or read out to them. But you are doing an excellent job of making yourself look retarded.
how incredibly ingnorant you statement is?
"Liberals believe that winning is now LEAVING, which is not losing, but understanding the state of things and protecting our interests long term."
Before we retreat out of Baghdad should we hold a cerimony where we hand over the keys to the city to the President of Iran or leaders of Al Queda?
I guess that to liberals the war on terror doesn't qualify as "protecting our interests long term."
Let me guess you want to pull the troops out and have them check more containers arriving at our ports?! Unbelievable.
The question wasn't "do you think the Iraq plan was a good idea?" That was covered in the half dozen previous questions, and a whole lot of people didn't think it is a great idea. I'm not so sure it's a great idea, myself. The question was whether they wanted the plan to succeed. Pretty straightforward.
I have to say I'm not particularly surprised at the results. There have been previous indications of the existence of a large population of crazies before, such as the chunk of people who thought gas prices were being controlled for electoral purposes, or those who think the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...I'm trying to tell you that 49% of liberals do not want to see MORE American death in Iraq, which is the definition to me of being unpatriotic.
49% of liberals want no part of this troop surge and will answer no to ANY question with the word Iraq in it.
after we leave?" NO, just ask the survivors in SE Asia. How about "If we leave Iraq to be controlled by Iran and Syria thereby validating their assumptions about the lack of will in America and Iran drops a nuke on Tel Aviv, do you care how many Jews die?" NO, we are with Jimmy Carter on the Joooo thing. Or, "If we leave Iraq and an emboldened Iran, threatens New York with an nuclear attack, will you support a pre-emptive strike?" NO, Elliot Spitzer will indict the perpetrators and they will be forced into community service alongside Boy George. Etc.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
And, yes, given a choice now between AMERICAN lives and IRAQI lives, I'm coming down on the side of AMERICAN lives because once we're going the Iraqis can chose civil war or not on their own.
Look, I don't think we should've been there in the first place, so I'm not sure what to do with the what happens now in Iraq stuff other than to say... I'm quite convinced that staying only pushes the Iraqi decision back from tomorrow until the day after we leave six months/a year/five years from now.
I could just see it now
Cornwallis: Well lets get out now nobody will think we lost and we don't want to be involved in their upcoming civil war.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
How you could take that away from what I said is incomprehensible.
Your statement indicates either a malfunctioning brain or a willful desire to distort the issue or both.
And yes I stand by my statement if we could have scared away the british with the possibility of a war one hundred years in the future so much the better for us.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
You think the civil war is a tactic to get us to leave?
That there's killing each other... a hundred a day... just to scare us off?
The civil war was being held in check by Saddam's brutality (same as with Milosevic) and was going to be unleashed as soon as he took his thumb off the country.
Not a reason to keep him in place, just a fact.
We did not cause the civil war and more importantly it appears as if we're not going to be able to stop it.
You think the civil war is a tactic to get us to leave?
Yes on the part of the Iranians and the Syrians. It also has the added bonus of potentially giving them a big chunk of Iraq. And before you say thats ridiculous it seems to be working with people such as yourself.
That there's killing each other... a hundred a day... just to scare us off?
See above
The civil war was being held in check by Saddam's brutality (same as with Milosevic) and was going to be unleashed as soon as he took his thumb off the country.
Not a reason to keep him in place, just a fact.
So government brutality killing people at rate X is better than random violence killing people at rate Y We did not cause the civil war and more importantly it appears as if we're not going to be able to stop it. I believe thats called assuming the conclusion. Veritas magna est et praevalet.
as a rational liberal. Do you guys ever think past your next latte?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
...want American soldiers to die in Iraq, do you?
> Yes, or you would not keep publishing secrets about how we fight the war. You would not deliberately misrepresent things like Gtmo. and Abu Ghraib into rallying cries in the islamofascist world.
Or that, were real stability possible, we don't want a peaceful Iraq?
> Not only do you not want a peaceful stable Iraq, you want another saddam to return and kill anothermillion or two, but in private where you don't have to see it, just like after you pulled us out of SE Asia in Vietnam and Cambodia.
Look, I'm sure there are some whackjobs... one tenth of a percent of people who call themselves liberals... that actually HATE AMERICA... and to them I say call yourself something else please, but on the whole we liberals now hear Iraq and just say NO regardless of the wording of the question.
> Yes, just like many of you were saying about Afghanistan before the Taliban were ousted, just like many lefties said about ending the Cold war through strength, you have merely reflexive, reactionaary answers to tough questions.
Just... no more.
> As in no more thinking, no more hard fights, no more hard challenges.
Look, the current meme is "Democrats don't have a plan to win" which is a way of FORCING Democrats and Liberals to either support keeping/adding troops or to look like we don't want to win.
>The truth hurts, no?
There is another possibilty and that is we now define winning under entirely different terms.
Winning is now getting as many American soldiers out alive and pursuing a policy which will turn down the tension in the region.
> No, that is called retreat. And please do tell, what policy will turn down the tension? A carter-esque policy that leaves our embassies vulnerable to radicals highjacking them? A policy that abandons the millions of people we have liberated to terrible deaths and slavery?
Winning is admitting that we cannot nation build and that we should simply call the removal of Saddam the best we can do for now.
Winning is getting us out of a civil war that 21,000 troops are not going to stop.
99.90% of us love America just as much as you do.
>If 99.9% of Americans loved America, there would be no liberals in America.
We just have a different vision as to how to save it
Look, I'm sure there are some whackjobs... one tenth of a percent of people who call themselves liberals... that actually HATE AMERICA...
This sounds alot like the "islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few radicals" meme that gets so much play.
"Liberals are patriotic and love the military! Its only a few radicals that hate America and its soldiers!"
Is it a coincidence that our jihadist enemies come up with talking points that sound so eerily similar to those our Democratic friends use time and again?
I think not.
...and to them I say call yourself something else please, but on the whole we liberals now hear Iraq and just say NO regardless of the wording of the question.
You can't even hear the word "Iraq" without shouting "NO," eh?
Telling. Very telling.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
I would like to say that if Fox News had called me and asked, “Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?”, after proudly having identified myself without hesitation as Republican -- and leaving aside the glaring omission of the definition of "success," an omission that fundamentally undermines the validity of the question -- I would honestly not have known what to say and, therefore, would have been included among those who were categorized as "Don't Know."
I would have faced a similar dilemma if someone had called and asked me, "Do you personally want Elvis to still be alive?" Well . . . um . . . yes I do (just because it would be a mindblowing story). But I know (as well as anyone can know such a thing) that he isn't.
Does patriotism require me to toss overboard my own bleak assessment of the situation in Iraq? Must I blindly follow George W. Bush no matter how doomed and foolish I -- with great sadness -- think the whole enterprise has become? In your heart of hearts do you think this latest gambit will meet with "success"?
(I will now crawl back into my bunker and pray that it is not hit directly by one of those extra-potent bombs the Pentagon has developed.)
long enough to explain why you want us to fail.
Don't offer a long liberalish answer about why you think we already failed, that is not the question. The question was do you want us to succeed or fail. Pick one and justify your answer.
I want us to "succeed" in Iraq in the same way I want Elvis to still be alive. I don't know how much clearer I can make my point.
you can make it a lot clearer.
Are you familiar with the words "Yes" and "No"? It's a binary choice, neither of which involves dead singers. It is not a question about what you think has happened, is happening, or will happen. The illiterate liberals are falling all over themselves to make those mistakes because they never were taught English. It's a queston about what you want to happen, success or failure.
An inability to answer a simple yes/no question without dreaming up some other question that takes your fancy does in fact make you liberalish. Sorry, them's the rules.
I'm being as honest with you as I know how. I have concluded we have done all we can in Iraq. I have also concluded that President Bush's latest plan will not result in "success" (whatever that means). Sorry. I know that is a hugely unpopular thing to believe (let alone say) around here. (If it's too controversial or painful for me to contribute my thoughts along these lines, I will stop doing so. Just say the word.)
I hope I am as wrong as it is possible to be. And if I am, I will -- if you want -- declare that I was wrong as often, and in as humiliating a way, as you would like. (BTW, I have stated my position here at Redstate before. A poll was started soon thereafter, and, if memory serves, the option "cut and run" received the second highest number of votes.)
Do I want us to "succeed" in Iraq? Yes. Do I think it's possible? No. And I will not pretend to think it's possible to answer Fox News's or your questions.
Whether you want something to happen has absolutely nothing to do with how likely you think the outcome is. Everybody wants to win the lottery, whether it's possible or not. If someone asked me "Do you want to win $100 million dollars (or a new car or whatever)?," I'd certainly say yes, no matter what the odds are of winning. The odds don't enter into whether you want something or not.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
the odds are less than hitting the lottery, that in fact, just as William F. Buckley, Jr. has said, "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." and that there must be an "acknowledgment of defeat." What if I truly believe, as I do, there is no chance at all the deployment of 21,000 additional troops will achieve "success"? (If we were sending 210,000 more soldiers, I very well might make a different assessment.) That is why I used the example of what I thought was an analogous question concerning the possibility that Elvis is still among us. With a premise so untethered to reality, the question posed is nonsensical, and the best of the three responses -- the only ones allowed -- is still, to me, "Don't know."
I would still want to win $100 million in the lottery even though I've never bought a ticket and don't plan to ever buy a ticket. It isn't possible for something to have longer odds than that.
As for the surge itself, which is kind of a threadjack, there is a chance it could work since those troops will be concentrated in a single area. The surge would triple the number of troops in Baghdad. It isn't a small number, looked at that way. I'm not super enthusiastic about it because I feel there are serious problems with the RoE that haven't and won't be resolved.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Sen. Hagel.
Being concerned about losing is not the same as wanting to fail. the former is legitimate concern. the later marks you as a dhimmiecrat.
And I do believe that there are those out there who do not want the plan to. I think those people are unthinking idiots. Do I want the plan to happen, do I think it will work, no. But I want it to with all my heart. What I want to see, and it may be a pipe dream, is a massive surge of troops, at least half of which come from our allies to come in and secure the situation. The reasons noted by Tbone are just too compelling tp completely pull out now. I think many libs/dems are blinded by "no war" to the point that they lose rational vision. We libs are supposded to have a "world" veiw. Well if we leave, how many more "world citizens" will die due to that decision? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000? I wish we had never gone in, and I hold President Bush responsible for the decision. On the other hand, we have the most powerful military in the history of the world. Give them a chance to really save lives
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of weak minds"
I don't want to be a liberal. But I don't mind having people in this country who don't agree with me on everything.
I do hate having people in opposition within my own country who are not ashamed to say that they want the President's war plan to fail. I wish we had a few million more like you and a few million fewer of the traitors who answered this question.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
According to a recent New York Times article (16 January) the United Nations set the death toll last year in Iraq at 34,452. The Times called it “a figure that represents the first comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.”
The figure was disputed by the Iraqi government and the Times noted that this figure was “nearly three times higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The Associated Press.” The article said, “The majority died from gunshot wounds,” and that “the general breakdown in order has led to a wave of crime, and many of the killings were part of that.”
What does this figure mean? If the U.N. figure is correct, it means that as many people die in Iraq from gunshot wounds as do in South Africa.
In a population of 26.7 million, this means that Iraq has a murder rate of approximately 128 murders per 100,000 persons. This is higher than the rate of 80 murders per 100,000 persons reached in Washington, DC, a few years ago.
And how does Iraq compare with other trouble spots? Let’s look at Darfur, for one, currently being managed by the United Nations itself. In May of 2005, the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, in Brussels, released a study called “Darfur: Counting the Deaths”. This organization estimated that 35,000 “violent deaths” occurred in Darfur over a 17 month period (24,705 = 12 months). In a population of 6 million, this comes out to a murder rate of 411 per 100,000 persons.
Every single message that America can not win in Iraq, is just another message to the terrorists we are fighting anywhere, that if they just hold on a while longer, the American leftists
will insure that America loses.
It's the exact same message that Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, John Kerry and his followers sent to the enemy in Vietnam. It worked than to defeat America, and it will work again if we let it.
The terrorists in Iraq are not defeating the US, the American Left is defeating America.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
A) Spotlighting this.
B) Making the front page.
I know I like to spar with you on immigration or whatnot, but you couldn't be more right here.
and we got the answers we expected.
already getting results on the ground. Some examples:
From the AP:
"Mahdi Army fighters said Thursday they were under siege in their Sadr City stronghold as U.S. and Iraqi troops killed or seized key commanders in pinpoint nighttime raids. Two commanders of the Shiite militia said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stopped protecting the group under pressure from Washington and threats from Sunni Muslim Arab governments.
The two commanders' account of a growing siege mentality inside the organization could represent a tactical and propaganda feint, but there was mounting evidence the militia was increasingly off balance and had ordered its gunmen to melt back into the population. To avoid capture, commanders report no longer using cell phones and fighters are removing their black uniforms and hiding their weapons during the day."
So we're taking out Sadr, excellent. What else?
What about Iran?:
The NY Slimes:
"BAGHDAD, Jan. 18 — Iraq is carrying out an extensive review of its diplomatic protocols with Iran and may place new restrictions on them, the Iraqi foreign minister said in an interview on Thursday, after Iranian military officials and diplomats were picked up in three separate American actions here....
For the first time, Mr. Zebari(foreign minister) disclosed the total number of Iranian diplomats operating officially in Iraq. There are 36 in the embassy in Baghdad, he said, along with 11 at the consulate in Karbala and 9 at another consulate in Basra."
Interesting, eh? Why the sudden action on iran? maybe because of this:
US News and WR:
"The U.S. military has launched a special operations task force to break up Iranian influence in Iraq, according to U.S. News sources. The special operations mission, known as Task Force 16, was created late last year to target Iranians trafficking arms and training Shiite militia forces. The operation is modeled on Task Force 15, a clandestine cadre of Navy SEALs, Army Delta Force soldiers, and CIA operatives with a mission to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives and Baathist insurgents in Iraq."
Task Force 15? They took out Zawahiri.
My point here is that (sorry liberal patriots) it doesn't matter if you support the plan or want to win or anything else. We're going to do it with you or without you. And if it's without you we'll just have to live with that.
So you just keep whining and passing meaningless resolutions.
I think its entirely possible for a person (say, a liberal) to both wish the president's plan to fail and still be patriotic. The problem, as I see it, rests on basic assumptions that people disagree on. If the president's plan "succeeds," (by success, I mean a noticible decrease in sectarian violence in Iraq), the military mission to Iraq will be prolonged. If, as many liberals do, you assume that the withdrawal of troops would be a positive step in the War on Terror, then its perfectly natural (and patriotic) to want an improvement. Many convservatives take it as gospel that withdrawal=failure, with disasterous consequences. Many liberals don't.
As for the entire litany of liberals hate America theme expressed above, its really getting tired. I find it troubling that so many conservatives equate holding a different belief or beliefs with hating this great country.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
So what you are saying is because the only thing that will get the troops home is complete failure and US defeat on the battlefield its patriotic to want the plan to fail.
A phrase to remember "Politics stops at the water"
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
If you think the imperialist occupation of Iraq is about stealing their oil for Haliburton, it is logical to say you want the plan to fail. After all, if we fail in Iraq, it makes it less likely that we will kill other innocent and helpless people to steal their natural resources. If we succeed, it makes it more likely we will do the same thing again. It all makes perfect sense if you are a liberal.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
of anyone who answered that question with a no. I was thinking why would they? and I come up with Republicans who answered no are more then likely the religious way-right who are look forward to total anarchy for the second coming. The Democrats are your Socialist, Communist, Muslims etc. who are looking forward to anarchy so that the governments will then have everyone work for everyone except yourself and somehow they always believe they will rise to the top and control things. The Independents were the toughest though and the only thing I could think of was they are truly one of the above however they are to schizophrenic and deluded to admit it.
Peace through superior fire power:)
So 34% of democrats are "Socialists, Communists, or Muslims?" Furthermore, are you really arguing that the patriotism of 17% of the nation is "in question?"
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
34% of Democrats being Socialists? That seems kind of on the low side, if you ask me.
17% is pretty close to the number that think the government staged 9/11. I suppose it's a stretch to think those guys are unpatriotic? If I thought the government staged 9/11 just so they could go on a killing spree for natural resources and take our civil liberties away, I don't think I'd want to be patriotic. It's perfectly logical from their point of view.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Any argument that relies on "the respondents mis-heard the question" are inane. In any poll, a small fraction will misunderstand or mishear a question (ignoring the fact that, in these types of polls, its a live caller on the other end who can, and will if asked, repeat a question), but to claim that a sizable enough portion to affect a sample of over 1,000 people would skew the results did this is just asinine.
Those who: a) understood the question perfectly, and b) answered it honestly should at least be commended for their blunt candor.
Were there some who misunderstood it? Probably -- there usually are. But I'm sure plenty who answered "no" understood the question just fine.
Forget high-minded ideals like patriotism. The reason for this has nothing to do with that. It's simple: they want to be right, and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice/etal to be wrong.
Remember when Salon.com editor Gary Kamiya made headlines by admitting publicly that he took pleasure in failures in Iraq and chagrin in the successes (or words to that effect)? He said that he just couldn't bear the thought of Rumsfeld being successful, or something along those lines.
While many Americans now disapprove of the way the war has gone, only about 25% or so opposed it at its onset. And, I imagine, that this 25% of the antiwar pioneers correlates very positively with those 39% who say they don't want this new strategy to work.
They've never wanted anything to work. While most rational people see that as Americans grotesquely pining for America to lose, they themselves see it as the pinnacle of patriotism (thus the oft-quoted 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism').
Simply put, the thought of their position being on the losing side of history (and, thus, Bush's being on the winning side) is well more painful than the thought of America losing another war. The way they see it, America needs to be given another lesson...a lesson it apparently didn't learn after Vietnam.
the survey question was designed to be difficult for people who oppose Bush's "surge".
Imagine you received a survey asking the following question: "Do you personally want Planned Parenthood to succeed in reducing the number of abortions in America?”
Almost everybody would agree that reducing the number of abortions is a desirable goal in the abstract, but I imagine that many people who oppose Planned Parenthood would have trouble answering "yes" to this question for the same reasons that many Democrats and Independents (i.e., groups that are generally opposed to "the surge") probably couldn't stomach a "yes" response to the question above.
Then imagine that the company conducting this survey was called Michael Moore Public Assessment, LLC. You might begin to suspect that the purpose of the survey had more to do with tricking you into answering a loaded question than with any interest in scientific polling.
implicate patriotism in any way. Moreover, PP doesn't seek to reduce abortions. Despite all that, I would answer yes.
See GC's MSM Debut Column in The Charlotte Observer
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The Minority Report
There's nothing about my post that implicates patriotism and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
Like you, the *majority* of Democratic respondents answered "yes" even when it meant swallowing an objectionable premise.
If you think the administration wants to fail in Iraq. That line of thinking would just defy any kind of rational explanation.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer
In response to my post, you wrote, "do not implicate patriotism in any way". It takes no great inferential leap to conclude that, in your view, something I wrote implicated patriotism. Otherwise, why would you tell me not to do it?
That wasn't very hard, was it? Of course, it is a much more ridiculous question since Planned Parenthood isn't trying to reduce the number of abortions and has no such plan.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But, the thing is, it shouldn't be difficult to answer. It's a simple, straightforward question: do you want us to succeed in Iraq or do you not?
It only becomes tricky if you've gotten yourself into a psychological corner -- to the point where you've totally lost your moral moorings.
That's the problem with remaining so virulently antiwar after a war's already begun. It's one thing to oppose a military action on principle prior to it being ordered. It's quite another to oppose it while it's going on -- to the point where, without even realizing it, you begin to take positions that unambiguously appear to be accepting (or, worse, hoping for) your own side to lose, if need be, in order to end it.
That doesn't mean that you have to support the policy once it's put into action, give up your reservations, misgivings, etc. But it's a fine line you have to walk to stay hoping for victory in a war that's underway and opposing the policy to begin with.
The thing I wish more people would come to grips with, myself, is that this war's actually just a battle within a larger war that began decades ago and was not started by us. As much as many Americans refuse to look at it that way, we should at least all understand that our enemies see it that way. And, when put into that (proper, IMO) context, the prospect of losing becomes more and more unacceptable.
Your post is quite well reasoned, too well reasoned. This is a black and white issue. Anyone who answered the question, affirming a desire for our failure in this endeavor should be considered against us, not for us. There is a clear demarcation between objection of the original decision, and desire for success. As much as I hold President Bush responsible for the original invasion(I am sure that others here disagree with me on the decision to invade, different topic) I believe he has my back and interests way more than any other world leader. Dislike of the man personally is one thing, allowing that dislike to even utter a desire for military failure is quite another. We are obviously individuals, allowed our opinions. But greater than that we are collectively Americans, products of our past, custodians of our present, and decidors of our future. This is not red vs. blue. By the way, I am a proud liberal who comes from a liberal grandfather and father who served, brother of two brave men who led in Viet-Nam, proud uncle of three nephews currently gracing our country, and father of a son, who if chooses to accept the honor of serving his country, will recieve the uncomprimising support, love and respect, that that choice demands. Myself, I had a regrettable accident in college that cost me an eye, thus I resigned from ROTC. I never had the privledge to bark "follow me".
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of weak minds"
If you think 37% of Americans are unpatriotic then go right ahead and scream it from the rooftops.
A decent sized group of people don't pay attention and have no idea what's even going on. 20% of the population have no idea who Pelosi is. That may indicate that they have some pretty screwed up priorities, but it doesn't make them unpatriotic. They aren't actively rooting for failure.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
very large numbers of Democrats and independents think that the Democrats would prefer military defeat in Iraq to success. Look at Question 21 on the poll. It's not just some Republicans thinking this.
do not wish the current Democratic Congress success in governing our nation.
Well, to be fair(and who has to be, we're talking politics) "A Very Large Number" might be an exxageration. So let's say some political-gameplaying-Republicans would never want the Democrats to succeed at achieving OUR GOALS of reducing gov't waste and taxation.
So it would not surprise me that there are Game-Playing Democrats who don't want the Bush Plan for Iraq to succeed.
Success at home and abroad will depend on putting patriotism above partisanship....Left and Right.
If the Democrats want to adopt the Republican platform and actually implement it, I'll be voting Democrat from here on out. But back in the real world, that is never going to happen. The Democrats aren't interested in achieving our goals because they have their own, which are mostly 180 degrees in opposition.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
as being 180 degrees from your position won't help you make any converts.
The Democrats seem to understand this, politically speaking.
Why do you think the new crop of socially-conservative(sounding) Democrats took the House and Senate?
If by "the Democrats seem to understand this" you mean pretend to be Republicans at election time in red states, you are right. That plan doesn't work for us, however. We just can't pull it off without a lot of assistance from the MSM. It's even getting more difficult for the Democrats to pull off. That's what happened to Daschle... his profile rose too high, and he finally got busted at the game.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
although I understand the titillation of proving your opponents enemies of the state, it seems pretty obvious (as has been noted) that people are gaming the poll. "They're not gonna get me to say anything in support of this bad policy!" so they say no. The headline either reads "Majority Wants Surge to Succeed" or "Dems are Traitors." It's a gotcha question.
That being said, I freely admit I'm not very "patriotic" as understood around here. That in fact is a foundation of my worldview. Blind loyalty isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Leads to fanaticism and extremism. Blind loyalty is stupid. Hence the vast majority of the trouble this nation is receiving from the "Left."
What we need more of is a kind of Considered loyalty. Measure the pros and cons and decide what side you are on. This doesn't mean loyalty to a group or a leader, but loyalty to the issues said group/leader argue. When those perfectly fallible people either give up or go off the deep end, don't follow them. But continually reevaluate where you stand on that issue because the pros and cons may change. May be different circumstances, may be something you didn't know is brought to your attention.
This is how I developed my patriotism and loyalty to the USA. I stand for freedom and personal responsibility. The USA is the leader in those areas. The day it ceases to be is the day my loyalty shifts. (but being a typical, lazy American, I shall do everything I can to keep America in the lead because it's easier than changing nations/jobs/residences...)
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
I thought they had well established a lack of it sometime ago. There are no liberal patriots. Attenuating to the established ideals and traditions of a country is counter to their religion of self. The only patriotic Democrats is the dwindling number of old line Dems who grew up Dems because daddy was a Dem and their union says that is how they should vote if they want to keep their soon to be gone job.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.