Redstate

Up to now all I had was some measure of faith that the public was not being completely hoodwinked by the MSM coverage and all the partisan efforts to derail the Iraq strategy. Partisans on the left often condescend to the people but thankfully the people are not as stupid as the self-identified elite believe.

thinks, right?  Interesting numbers, though.  Wonder what percentage of those who favor troop withdrawal also think they are hurting troop morale?

Nick, I think nearly everyone supports the troops - are there many anecdotes of troops being ill-treated when they come home?

I imagine that what matters most to troop morale is how the occupation is progress - are things getting better, are risks subsiding, do the troops feel they are effective and appreciated, do they have a clear sense of mission, or are they being worn down and don`t see a light at the end of the tunnel?  I think they have a great sense of duty, and care most if they feel if they are being effective in carrying it out.

Of course if people back home don`t support the war, that probably has an effect, but it`s secondary.  The soldiers are not pansies and are not getting their b*tts kicked.

I don`t think all of the naysaying is purely partisan politics, but opinions may differ.  In any case, I imagine you will agree that the focus should be on bolstering public support, and those spineless dems will follow.

to show up in the Senate well wearing flak jackets with red,white, and blue sweat bands around their knotted heads and rubber M-16's slung over their bent and rounded shoulders?  You realize that a responsible newspaper like the NY Times would never run with a divisive article like this at least not before doing their own national survey in the west side of upper Manhattan.  Much coffee must have been gagged and spit at certain breakfast tables this dark and gloomy morning, just what are the priest hood of opinion makers to do when the cattle don't follow them, and with a minimum of mooing.

That's funny. Tim Russert and his "round table" of four liberals (including the stomach churning David Gregory) did not mention these poll numbers. They did prattle on and on about the "floundering" Bush presidency, etc etc blah blah.

The MSM is like a chicken with its head cut off....too dumb to know that it is dead.

we control all of gov't and little of the conservative agenda will be enacted before liberals again control congress.

TT, if I kept calling you an ignorant, ugly  sap after enough time you're gonna get fed up and down about it.  And while most military will discount this, after a while it is gonna take its toll.

http://www.townhall.com/blogs/capitolreport/TimChapman/story/2005/11/22/176
535.html

"These numbers suggest what many Republicans have been privately saying for a week now: Democrats have classically overreached on the Iraq issue. Not only have they gone farther than the American people are willing to go, but they have been so wrongheaded about their approach that they have unified a Republican party that only days ago was fissured on domestic issues."

As to whether these newly "unified" Republicans accomplish anything legislatively...

to assist Saddam's defense team.  Why isnt this prominently mentioned as "former Dem Att'y General Rammsay Clark"?  I think even the most hardened anti-Bushie must admit this might somehow affect troop morale.  

anything legislatively, the R's have to do a couple of things.  First, they have to figure out that they control both houses of Congress and that the D's are the minority party.  Next, they need to figure out what they stand for.  Are they the party of pork and compromise or do the stand for fiscal restraint and national security.

I would argue that the "accomplishments" of the R's so far in the last 5 years are fleeting.  

 * Tax cuts.  They're only temporary and the leadership can't muster the spine to make them permanent and expand them.  

 * The war.  Still waiting on whether this is important.

 * Fiscal restraint.  Not important.

 * Border security.  Not on the horizon.

 * Social Security reform.  Not even a starter.

 * Judges.  Mixed results with some confirmations but I'm still waiting on some concerted offense to get Alito and the remaining judges confirmed.

If they can manage to figure out that they are in control, there is still time.  I'm not holding my breath, however.  Bush seems to want to avoid the appearance of partisanship at virtually all costs.  Haskert without DeLay and Frist are totally adrift.

The complete Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll results are posted here.  Sorry, it's in pdf format.

The Cook Political Report and RT Strategies announce the launch of the Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll, a telephone survey of 1,000 American adults on issues, the current political climate, President Bush and Congress, as well as the 2006 midterms and the 2008 presidential election. The inaugural poll was conducted November 17 to November 20, 2005, and has a margin of error +/- 3.1%.

If that many people understand Democrats are politicizing the war for their own gain,

A) Do the masses understand the seriousness of giving the enemy propaganda?(you see a Democratic leader on Al Jazeera calling our troops murderers, torturers, etc. every week), and

B) Will the masses hold Democrats accountable for their anti-American(and sometimes treasonous) behavior?

This gop morale is up and has been continually due to election victory streak which prevents any of the lib agenda from being enacted.

Thr RT Strategies Poll was conducted before Vice-President Cheney delivered his Nov. 21rst speech on terrorism at AEI.

Additionally, MSM is still using the results from Gallup's Poll conducted Nov. 11-13.  This period is before information from President Bush's speech on Nov. 11th was widely disseminated to the American people and a week before Vice-President Cheney's speech on Nov. 21rst.

There is nothing admirable about the conduct of either party with regard to the Iraq war.  Look at the joy the right takes in convincing the public that the left hates the troops.  Look at the glee with which the left points out the lies that the administration told to justify the war.

When you consider what's at stake, this is revolting.

to you, personally?

Can you write an example of a statement a free american could make that you would deem unpatriotic and harmful to the troops and/or the US?

No liberal has ever complied with this request on redstate.

They have unleashed their poltroon Murtha, jsut weeks before the vital Iraqi election, the first under their new democratic constitution. Do you think that was an accident? No. They timed it for maximum damage against the Iraqi people, to instill fear in them that America may do to them what we did to Vietnam: disavow the mission and leave those who believed in it to a fate under those who hate freedom.

Do you think the dems would give any mroe about our troops now than they did when they made Kerry a leader in the 1970's for his lies and alsnders against the troops? The dems of today lie about the intel, the course of the war, and even their prior support. The morale of the troops is just a minor pothole on their path to take power back.

Heck, if they needed to let a city or two get nuked to take back power, I bet that would be a really tough call for those cynical liars.

They have been holding them accountable since 1972 with a few bumps and congress since 1994.

The dems available to be held accountable shrinks every election

despite quarterly msm-crises and polls to the contrary.

2006 will be devastating to dems even by recent historical standards.

As a 6/2001 convert who was an active dem leader until then, I have seen the rot of the dems from the inside and experienced the losses that I always knew were coming. Ive never been wrong on a election.

I think the remaining southern dems will switch parties before 2008. They have committed suicide down here and fatally injured themselves in many blue states they barely won in 2004.

America will not repeat Vietnam and will not for the first time in history knowingly elect a dove while at war.

no doubt

the msm is impotent

and the sooner elected gop realizes it the better

Upon review of your posting history, it seems that your efforts here are a form of pollution. In fact, when taken together, your posts form a veritable Superfund site. I am therefore cleaning you up and throwing the rag on The Pile™.

In the spring of 2002 over 55% of Americans believed that some or all of the 911 hijackers were from Iraq ... that didn't make it true.

The fact is our men and women in Iraq are doing the jobs they are tasked to do, and are not worrying about press clippings back home.

Meanwhile, those of us back home need to honor them and their committement by making sure we have a vigerous debate regarding the direction of the war in Iraq.  Republicans, independents, democrats, all most everyone knows somebody in Iraq, or who has been, or who is going.

Gee, I don't recall a 'vigerous debate' during WWII over the direction of the war.  This is as silly as the fans debating the coach about the direction of the football game while it is being played.

When you go to war you leave it to the military to WIN IT.  When you don't, you get VIETNAM.

It doesnt take hardly any effort to convince average Americans that the LLL hates the troops.  After all, if Momma Moonbat praises the killers of her son, do we really have to do any talking at all?

really doesn't have anything to do with today. Yet people cling to the belief that some Americans thought that Iraq was behind 9/11 as though it was proof of something. What is it that you think this proves, dpandrews?

It's naive to think that the press back home doesn't bother troops in Iraq. It certainly did bother troops in Vietnam so why wouldn't it bother troops in Iraq?

who think the democrats are hurting troop morale that is so devastating for the dems. It's the 70% who think the dems do not have good intentions for doing so (if we are to believe that only 30% think the dems have good intentions, that leaves 70% who do not). It's the intention that matters more than the result. Americans are fundamentally fair people and if 70% of them think that either party demoralized troops with bad intentions for doing so, well, that will be the kiss of death for that party.

The 400-something to 3 vote against immediate withdrawal will also hurt the dems because it forced them to vote against what they'd been demanding themselves. Now, it may have been a dirty trick for the republicans to call for a vote on democratic demands, but the public won't see it that way. The public will see it as the republicans saying "Put up or shut up". Why the democrats demanded something they wouldn't vote for themselves will go down as one of the great political mysteries of all time.

It is true that a very high percentage of Americans think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. But since the administration has never made this claim and has, on numerous occasions, gone to lengths to avoid making that connection, to what can we attribute this view? Could it be that the inate good sense of the American people can see the trees while the Democrats are lost wandering in the forest?

after a year long debate in which, to make it fair, Bush rarely spoke while the msm-kerry-dem-libs attacked him 24-7 making the same murtha-mckinney arguments the left still obseses over.

So really, the honorable thing to do would be top honor the choice, we the people made, by supporting the one president we have till 2008 and the troops carrying out the ratified policy by not emboldening the enemy.

what a concept

be having a vigorous debate on how to win the war, NOT on what is the best way to demonize the President and pull out of Iraq.

Well if you can compare Iraq to football you could compare it to Chernobyl.

Leadership out of touch with reality.

Hey i think you need to turn the damn thing off!

I would argue that the "accomplishments" of the R's so far in the last 5 years are fleeting.  

 * Tax cuts.  They're only temporary and the leadership can't muster the spine to make them permanent and expand them.

I'm not overly worried about this one. Frankly, there is more political advantage to having them temporary than there is to making them permanent. So long as they are "temporary" each election cycle conservatives can use to encourage voters to pick them. If the cuts are made permanent, the issue goes away.

* The war.  Still waiting on whether this is important.

President Bush has said he regards himself as a war president. He doesn't need to bang on this issue every day for me to believe the war is important to him. All the congressional Republicans need to do is keep the "Surrender NOW!" Democrats at bay.

* Fiscal restraint.  Not important.

I never really expected it to be important to Bush. He ran as a "compassionate conservative" which to me always meant he wasn't going to reduce spending. Also you need to recognize that controlling spending is a truly difficult thing to do politically. A handful of liberal Republicans teamed with a unified block of liberal Democrats will always be able to thwart spending reductions (even reductions in the increase in the rate of spending).

* Border security.  Not on the horizon.

I disagree on this count. Karl Rove and Republicans who are up for re-election can read polls. I expect to see something sooner rather than later on this front. And I expect manpower along the border to be a key component. Whether or not it comes with an "amnesty" for illegals, increased numbers for legal immigration or any of the other stuff is hard to tell. But the manpower will go up, and enforcement actions will increase. The Minutemen aren't going away until this is fixed, and they've focused public attention.

* Social Security reform.  Not even a starter.

Ya got me here. Same assessment, and it doesn't make sense to me. Even if Bush didn't get as much of a switch to personal accounts as he wanted, he should have pushed this one. Especially if he frames it in terms of giving people who are paying the "insurance" a choice about where THEIR excess contributions go.

* Judges.  Mixed results with some confirmations but I'm still waiting on some concerted offense to get Alito and the remaining judges confirmed.

Miers was clearly an attempt to sidestep the mother of all confirmation battles. I presume this is because Bush does truly want to reduce the partisan rancor. Unfortunately for him it takes both sides to want that for it to happen. Now that Bush knows he can't sidestep the battle, Alito is the point of the spear for it. If Santorum can put some backbone in Specter (or at least if the chit Bush collected for pushing for his re-election is big enough) the battle is winnable. Even if it does mean going to the Constitutional/Nuclear option.

Part 1.  Please provide references that the right is doing anything to convince the public that the left hates the troops.  There is NO evidence of that.  I don't believe that even Cynthia McKinney hates the troops.  What I do believe is that the left is doing everything possible to undermine the mission of the troops:  win the war.  There is a vast difference.  The first is just stupid.  The second, and the reality of the situation, is very close to treasonous.

Part 2.  Please provide evidence that the administration lied about anything to justify the war.  NO evidence there either.  That's why the moonbat brigade is now accusing the President of "slanting" the intelligence.

You are right about one thing, considering what's at stake, it's revolting.  The actions of the Democratic Party are the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.  This won't just hurt them in '06, it may be the death of the party.  Long term, as the reality of their positions, along with the unreality of the reporting provided by the MSM comes out under the bright light of truth, we will see a sea change in both politics and reporting.

In the spring of 2002 over 55% of Americans believed that some or all of the 911 hijackers were from Iraq ... that didn't make it true.

I suspect you are either misremembering or misquoting the results, and that the actual poll said 55% of Americans thought Iraq was INVOLVED in the plot. If so, you'll probably find those numbers still hold today. Saddam harbored known terrorists, provided training facilities for terrorists, and facilitated their crossing into other countries in the areas from which they obtained false credentials. So yes, Saddam (who was synomous with Iraq at the time) most likely did have something to do with the 9-11 bombing, even if the CIA can't find it.

I wish I knew how to do those neat little boxes...

Tax cuts.  Good point, I'll give you most of that one.  Death tax elimination needs to be made permanent though.

War.  Bush has made his opinion of the war irrelevant by enforcing some level of party discipline in the Senate.  I'm not real interested in hearing Bush, Cheney, etal make the case on regular basis.  I'm outraged that the D's can call the President a liar at will and never get smacked down by the Congressional R's.  The Congressional leadership is impotent on a good day.  They are the poster boys for "get along...".  Not only are they not keeping the D's at bay, they aren't even trying.

Fiscal Restraint.  Back to Congressional leadership.  Or lack thereof.  Frist and Hastert need to be sent to cloak room.  Permanently.  I didn't expect much of Bush on this either.  I really didn't expect Congress to join the drunken sailor brigade.  Stupid me.

Border Reform & SSI.  I don't expect much on border reform or SSI.  Both of those require a backbone and are very complicated.  In these cases we get 1,000 page bills that require judicial interpretation.  Both issues could be resolved in about three double-spaced pages but that would be way too ugly.

Judges.  Your comment on Bush is right on.  It's the problem.  Don't count on Santorum being able to deliver anything with Specter.  He's got his own problems.  Plus, Specter doesn't give a damn.  The guy who could have some impact on Specter is Jon Kyl because if Specter got booted, he would be replaced by Kyl.  That would be a good thing, but only if the R's replace Frist with someone who will show some spine with "my good friends..." in the Senate.  I really think that our New Year's present will be a filibuster of Alito.

That would appear to be a line of silliness followed by a lefty canard followed by a useless taunt.

We have all of those we need. Don't bring us any more.

aided by the MSM, of course.  Did you catch Sen. Levin on FNS today.  He tried to pin the beliefs of that 55% of the American public on the President's supposed mis-representations.  He might want to take another look at the Congressional Joint Resolution that he voted for, which contained this little gem:

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq"

Now honestly, Senator, where do you think the American people got their alQaida-9/11-Iraq connection idea from?

You would think such a prolific group of "misleaders" as the Dems would be more skilled at it by now.

No it's just a fact the man in charge made a very bad judgment call.

He knew better than everyone and did it his way.

He made the wrong choice.

But drink your kool-aide it's very relaxing.

drink your kool-aide

Eat more pile.

We should adress first, what is winning.   Because I think most Americans are unclear on this.  

If it is putting an elected government in place we will have accomplished that on Dec. 15.  

The poll was very direct.  It asked how many of the 911 hijackers were Iraqis.   All?  Some?  None?   All and some combined scored a majority ... this after the 19 hijackers had been splashed across the tv for weeks in the aftermath of the tragedy.

..have showed similar results

when their security forces are at sufficient strength as determined by the US military experts so that the baathists-islamo-facists are not a threat to topple the elected Iraqi govt.

I suggest we not abandon Detroit and re-deploy to Auburn Hills either. I believe, given time, that we can secure Detroit as we have the rest of Michigan. The killing is unacceptable now, but with patience we can prevail.

I disagree, I think most Americans are clear that the War on Terror is a war against Islamic Radicalism.  It is the Dems that can't seem to grasp the concept that the mission in Iraq is just a smaller part of The US's overall War on Terror strategy.

that the statement I referenced from the Joint Congressional Resolution would not lead the American public to the exact same conclusion cited in your poll(s)?  If that's your position, then a history lesson would not even begin to address your educational needs.  Might I suggest a course in 1) Logic and 2) Ethics?

Time to prove it, dpandrews. Let's see the poll that showed that a significant percentage of AMericans thought the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis rather than a significant percnetage thinking Iraq may have been or was involved in 9/11.

this is what you meant to say, dpandrews

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Not even close.

instead of simply making bald assertions.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%229%2F11%22+%22hijackers%22+%22ir
aqis%22+%22poll%22&btnG=Google+Search

There is this thing called "google".

Is this true where you live?

37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis.

... to back up your assertions?

he's temporarily lost his uplink to The Hive over at dKos?

"Why the democrats demanded something they wouldn't vote for themselves will go down as one of the great political mysteries of all time."

Pick your reason for why the GOP pushed back, but it was fairly clear that the Democrats weren't ready for it; the latter gave an excellent collective impression of a group of people trying to tread on a stair step that wasn't actually there.

When 64% of Americans think that the Bush administration is dishonest with Americans so that they can serve their own purposes, you think that Democrats have a problem???

If the Republican party is to survive, you need clear-eyed people looking at what is going on and trying to fix it, which will be best for our nation. Honest disagreement, and discussion, are very healthy, in my view.  Repeating contentions that have no basis in fact, over and over and over, are very harmful to our nation.

to see that be the next roll call, game.

military?  The discussion is over when our mission in Iraq should end.  If this cannot be discussed without seriously undermining the confidence our troops have, them we should be much more careful about sending the troops in, since it means we may never be able to draw them, except in the case of a catastrophic loss.

While of course I care about the emotional condition of the troops, that concern should not dictate policy.

concern for the troops should certainly moderate the rhetoric of the anti-war lobby, and should without a doubt put the BushLied(tm) meme beyond the pale.

It is amazing that you LIBS keep referencing that poll number that has been proven to have been weighted 40%DEMS, 20%REPUBS and the rest whatever. Speaking of contentions that have no basis in fact how about this from the LIBS: Bush lied, Iraq quagmire, Social Security is fine do't worry be happy BS, fill in the blanks on the others there are many. Harmful to our nation you mean the Iraq can't be won or there is no terrorism threat or we caused the terror threat or my favorite from Chris Mathews the poster boy for you idiots AQ just has a different perspective so we should try to get along. The progressive movement and the Democratic party are harming this nation not the Republican party.

not be a muzzle for discussion of our objectives and progress.  

It seems to me that both sides could argue this issue - e.g., where is the thread that discusses how our planning for the war may have unncessarily increased the levels of risks to which our troops are exposed?  How about the stop-loss orders, and how extended/multiple missions have affected the personal/maritial lives of the troops?  Should these considerations make it into the discussion about where we go from here?

advance a discussion of our objectives and progress?

the bottom line in supporting the troops simply means I do not bash the military for policy decisions they have not made, while seeking policies that are most conducive to mission confidence and the physical and mental well-being of the troops.  

Gamecock, have you forgotten that one of the reasons why we have a military is to protect our freedom, and think instead that our freedoms should be curtailed to protect the military?

I may not be happy with what various people say about our country or it policies, but as long as they're a citizen I'll defend their right to say it (but not to force me or others to listen).  I imagine that our laws and courts have set some lines, but I must confess I don't know precisely what they are - perhaps you do?  I suppose that as long as the speech of a citizen does not go so far as revealing information that would imperil the safety of the troops, it would be within that person's rights, as much as I might find such words repugnant.

Why don't you set out what statements you would find unpatriotic, and we can discuss those.

You imply I'm liberal - I'd be curious what if anything you would draw from any of my posts to support that conclusion.

is "BushLied(tm) rhetoric"?  I suppose some rhetoric is purely partisan and is designed simply to score political points, but I don't it all is.  Some may be well-intended but plain wrong, and some might be right.  It's just not always that easy to draw the line.

People here may not want to listen to criticism, but there's alot of overreaction.  Most of the criticism simply doesn't matter - the troops are there, and I trust Bush not to bring them back until the mission is complete.  If there's a concern about possible erosion in Rep positions over the mid-term (which I suppose could be called a political concern), then I can understand the name-calling, but I would say it is still essential for the Administration to focus not merely on bashing critics but also on selling the more extended occupation to the American people.

So loud, in fact, are the "Bush lied, people died" screamers that that legitimate policy discussions are relegated to the noise.

How can you not have noticed this?

not only by the noise generated by "Bush Lied" screamers, but also by the emotional reaction on the right that filters out even the "legitimate" voices.  Too bad, but human nature I believe.  Shall take a time out and bemoan all the flaws and foibles we have?

You imply I'm liberal - I'd be curious what if anything you would draw from any of my posts to support that conclusion.

To determine conclusively that you are a liberal would require a Vulcan mind meld. That you implicitly accept and recite the talking points of liberal activists is just a fact. For example, in 55 you state

The discussion is over when our mission in Iraq should end.

It is? How did that get to be the topic of discussion? That you implicitly accept the premise that "the discussion" is about when the mission should end is more revealing than you apparently suspect. We could, for example, be having discussions about what trade policies might be appropriate to assist the fledgling Iraqi economy; or the long-term effects on the Middle East of an Iraq that so outstrips its Arab neighbors economically that the myth that someone or something (The Great Satan, The Jooz) other than the despots and the the royalities are responsible for the pitiful condition of the Arab nation. But noooooo. Instead the "discussion" is about when we give up, when we withdraw, how soon we admit we made a mistake, yada yada.

In the title of the same post, you ask, "Who's attacking the military?" If you don't know, then you are the proverbial fish who doesn't see the water because he lives in it. I'll tell you who has attacked the military: Senator Durbin. The New York Times. Time Magazine. There are countless others, but they quickly devolve into Kossacks and I don't want you to have the 'out' of claiming that only the nutcases are doing this. To those of us who were around at the time, this constant drip, drip, drip of "Abu Ghraib! Korans in the toilets! Worse than the Nazis!" is all too familiar. It's the same "Jen-jis Khan" hoo-hah that John Kerry was selling in the 1970's.

Bottom line, you can't expect to waddle and quack without somebody suspecting that you're a duck.

I have finally gotten my hands on the raw data of this poll. It appears that this data may be skewed in favor of Republicans. I say that because they asked each respondent a series of demographic questions, and the percentage of people who answered "Unsure/Don't Know" to the question of whether they are male or female was zero.

think.  I'm disappointed, as I had hoped that among those here you would have come closer to the truth - there are shape-shifters walking the earth (and one or two who have been given the thankless task of haunting the ether).  We have evolved to help defend mankind posed by the threat of ETs who, unbeknownst to G'narr, the local coordiantor of this Galactic sector, wish to take over this piece of real estate.  

Their plan is simple and devious - exploit human wetware programming to accelerate hostility by stimulating conflict perception and tribal defense modes.  This is variation on a simpler plan than was exposed by an earlier shape-shifter in his Nebula-award winning expose, The Screwfly Solution.

They are working on microbial warfare and even military invasion, but we are working to expose the threats - WV Republican's recent post is an indication of a recent brilliant success (through an aging shape-shifter posing as a Canadian peacenik) - or at least to neutralize them by shifting private and governmental expenditure into the pharmaceutical and aerospace defense conglomerates.

But we are fighting an uphill, heroic battle, where the enemy has infiltrated not the water and our precious boby fluids, but our very MINDS!  They make us see enemies, even ducks, everywhere! All the while we must be careful not to awaken Tsathoggua and his formless spawn.

Sounds difficult - naw, you can do it too!  Stop swimming with the fishes and become like me - a fish out of water who's learned to breathe AIR!  No, I'm not a Chinese walking death fish - don't harpoon me, aarggh!

Thank God you missed.  Ok, we need to start on understanding our programming, so then we can still to fend off the wetware viruses that are making people attack each other.  Only the world hangs in the balance (not really, just its occupation by mankind).  We can fight THEM!

until about 18 months ago and had been since I first voted in 1980.

Amazing how silly you seem when you resort to calling names instead of addressing the point.

"I've always been a Republican, I voted for Bush, but I just can't support him anymore because [fill in your favorite talking point here]"

Gee, we've never ever seen this claim before. Go away, we demand our mobys at least have some quality that makes them amusing. You don't.

On how this dicussion is being carried out. The far left wing 'Get Out Now' crowd and their supporters among the Democratic leadership have been saying, with every breath, 'We don't need to be there', 'This is a mistake', 'We should never have invaded', 'Bush lied', ad nauseum. How the troops feel when the alleged loyal opposition keeps saying that everything they have been fighting for wasn't really worth it to begin with?

getting to learn the acronyms here...LOL

Got MSM, working on LLL though.

Googled Dkos to figure out what that was. WOW! Is it just me or are they some really bitter, hate-filled folks over there. NOT ONE good, uplifing thing to say about anything.

I searched about four in the top ten, but none of them seem to have your numbers. I don't really see it as my responsibility to look up the numbers, and more importantly, the actual raw questions for the poll. I tend to distrust news summaries of what was said. Had a bad experience once with a college reporter. Told them specifically that our Astronomy Club made astronomical equipment available to the general public during our open houses, not Astrological equipment. Made an emphatic point that it might not have mattered to most people back in the middle ages, but in modern times it does. News article had it wrong anyway. The reporter said the editor insisted on the change and they could stop them.

we be polling troops to see if the democrats' statements hurt their morale?  This seems like a silly poll to me.  Why should we be asking one group of people what effect the democrats have on a wholly separate group of people when we could go straight to the group of people targeted by the poll.

This strikes me as a poll conducted for purely political purposes.

but I am telling the truth.  I was a republican until I realized there were no WMDs.  I voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush 41, Dole and then Bush 43.  I was also really upset at that video shown at the Press Dinner in which Bush 43 went looking under desks and tables for WMDs.  I was appalled - it was no joke to those of us who had believed and defended him or those who knew soldiers fighting in Iraq at the time.

The final nail, however, was the behavior of the convention-goers at the Republican convention with the purple heart bandaids on their cheeks.  As a daughter of a Korean War veteran who received a Purple Heart, I could no longer associate with a party that says they support the military and then promotes such shameful mocking of a member of the military who was awarded a Purple Heart. So, I am now a moderate independent leaning Democrat, rather than a moderate Republican.

You can call me a liar, you can choose to disbelieve me, but Bush' approval rating is in the 30s because you refuse to listen to people who think like me.  

I would invite you to read any of the hundreds of milblogs available if you are actually interested in the perspectives of the troops themselves.  I think you'll find the majority of them agree with the sentiments in this poll.

Alternately, directly ask any of your family or friends that are currently serving or have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other recent theater of operations what they think about the related press coverage.  (If you don't have any family or friends that fit that criteria, well, then, see my first recommendation about milblogs.)

Of course, I don't think you actually give a toss about what most soldiers think, as you've had several years to acquaint yourself with what they've been saying.  Granted, it requires you to step outside of the "reality-based community" and into, well, reality, but the opportunities to hear from and speak to the actual men and women serving our country is there if their views genuinely matter to you.

that the fact that we have not located WMD was sufficient to change your entire political philosophy? The fact that WMDs have not been found is essentially meaningless. I know it's a cliche but absence of evidence is most certainly not evidence of absence.

You feel misled by believing the same information accepted by the intelligence services of virtually the entire Western world, and large parts of the rest? The intelligence services of the UK, Germany, France (yes even France), Italy, Denmark, et al believed the had the stuff. King Hussein and President Mubarak warned Gen. Franks about Iraqi WMD. But you feel sufficiently misled by this to abandon everything else that was true about Hussein's Iraq (torture, murder, political oppression, genocide, et al), all of the other reasons for dealing with Hussein  and all of the positive things that have come out of this action.

Sir, I submit that if that's all it took to drive you into the arms of the looney left then you were never very committed to begin with.

------------------

and with regard to the "purple bandaids", while they may have been in poor taste, they were nothing compared to the poor taste shown by the D's when they nominated their traitor in residence, John Kerry.  

I am not only willing to mock the Senator, I would be more than happy to spit on him for his unrepentant slander of a generation of men who actually served their country.  He gamed his service and is a shameful man.

I'm perfectly willing to believe you concerning your reasons for change.  I just question what in the world you could be committed to if the two reasons you gave for changing are it.  

I'm sure that for people who believe that the moon is made of green cheese, one of the great mysteries of all time is why the moon appears to be white rather than green.

I don't know why you believe that Democrats demanded an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If House vote on the Republican resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal failed to convince you that the support for an immediate withdrawal is not a mainstream position in either political party, it's hard to imagine what would convince you of this.

I'm not saying that, at the end of the day, people in the military holds views inconsistent with what people think.  My point was that it just seems stupid to conduct a poll asking one group of people what another group of people thinks when you could go directly to that second group in the first place.  That poll certainly tells us what civilians think that folks in the military think, but it doesn't tell us anything about what the military folks actually think.  If you're going to poll on that topic, you should poll people in the military directly.  That would give far better information than just asking people to speculate on what the military thinks.  

Of course, I don't think you actually give a toss about what most soldiers think, as you've had several years to acquaint yourself with what they've been saying.  Granted, it requires you to step outside of the "reality-based community" and into, well, reality, but the opportunities to hear from and speak to the actual men and women serving our country is there if their views genuinely matter to you.

Wow, I guess you were really looking for a soapbox when you posted this.  If I cared about what most soldiers think (and I'm not saying that I don't), I certainly wouldn't go asking somebody who is not in the military to inform me on the subject.  As you point out, there are plenty of first-hand sources, so why would I ask a second-, third-, or no-hand source?  

Of course certain Democratic partisans are hurting troop morale.  Not most Democrats, but the lefties and the professional Bush-haters, who make it perfectly obvious that their Iraq positions are calibrated to their fear of Bush (his effectiveness as a leader post 9-11) and their loathing of Bush (starting with election 2000 up to the present).

Thus, they accentuate every negative about the Iraq war and ignore every positive.  They say the Commander-In-Chief is a liar, that the vote to send troops to Iraq was based on a lie, and that the sacrifices of the troops are all for a lie.  Oh, I forgot, that the torture scandals are really the only legacy of those troops.

And then they are surprised that the public thinks this hurts troop morale, regardless of the public's own reservations about Iraq.  Bad-mouthing the war effort undermines the morale of troops fighting the war.  Who knew??!!

It must be wonderful to be able to construct an alternate reality of total irresponsibility with the connivance of the MSM.  Trouble is, Reality Bites, and the public knows it.

and I did not ask for an example of same.

Patriotism is not a legal term. Its moral. One must decide for oneself what it means. And free speech allows unpatriotic speech that is not treasonous. So I do not want to lock up people for same.

But all speech is not wise. Imagine a continuum from

patrotic thru neutral thu unpatriotic to treason.

Can you provide at least ONE example of a statement you think is unpatiotic in the context of war with troops in the field?

get the point of the poll.  The purpose of the poll was not to determine whether criticism of the war effort was actually effecting morale or not (though, I might add that there are several polls of the troops highlighting this very fact).  The purpose, in this case, was to determine the American public's reaction to the competing political arguments here at home.  And on that score, this is a wake-up call for the cut-and-run Dems.  I mean, when 55% of DEMOCRATS believe its hurting the troops, and a "majority [of those polled] believes the motive is really to 'gain a partisan political advantage'", then baby, you've got a big problem.

Wow, I guess you were really looking for a soapbox when you posted this.  If I cared about what most soldiers think (and I'm not saying that I don't), I certainly wouldn't go asking somebody who is not in the military to inform me on the subject.  As you point out, there are plenty of first-hand sources, so why would I ask a second-, third-, or no-hand source?  

I guess you were really looking for a strawman when you posted this nonsense, because at no point did I tell you to find someone not in the military to inform you on the subject of what the troops think, nor did I tell you to ask any second-, third-, or no-hand source.

I told you to read the milblogs of soldiers who make their stories and opinions available on the internet, or to talk directly to any friends or family you have that are serving or have served, if you're interested in what the troops think.

However, you seem to have proved me right in that you obviously don't give a toss what the troops actually think; you were just trying throwing up chaff to distract from the poll results highlighted in the original post.  Nothing surprising there, coming from you.

Or only ad hominem attacks?

You're just making yourself look weak.  If you have to impugn the other fellow's motives in order to respond, then you don't have anything serious to say.  In which case, you should say nothing.  

The purpose, in this case, was to determine the American public's reaction to the competing political arguments here at home.

I don't think that that's accurate, even if it is stated somewhere.  If the poll were seeking to elucidate that, there are better ways than asking people what effect they think the democrats carping has on troop morale.

I mean, when 55% of DEMOCRATS believe its hurting the troops, and a "majority [of those polled] believes the motive is really to 'gain a partisan political advantage'", then baby, you've got a big problem.

Maybe, maybe not.  Problem is that the poll is pure speculation.  It's asking those polled to speculate on what effect the carping is having, that's a stupid point to poll on IMHO.  The second point is more salient and certainly within the bounds of a reasonable poll.

My whole point is that its stupid to poll people about what another group thinks.  It's all speculation.

because at no point did I tell you to find someone not in the military to inform you on the subject of what the troops think, nor did I tell you to ask any second-, third-, or no-hand source.

I never said that you did.  You're just making stuff up now.

I told you to read the milblogs of soldiers who make their stories and opinions available on the internet, or to talk directly to any friends or family you have that are serving or have served, if you're interested in what the troops think.

And I agreed with you.  If I wanted to find out what soldiers think, I would go straight to the source rather than asking a "man on the street" what he thinks soldiers think.

However, you seem to have proved me right in that you obviously don't give a toss what the troops actually think; you were just trying throwing up chaff to distract from the poll results highlighted in the original post.  Nothing surprising there, coming from you.

So if I should be going straight to the Milblogs and first hand sources, why should I pay attention to a poll who asks non-military sources what the military thinks?  As I said before, if I wanted to find out what the military actually thinks, I would ask them or go to those sources, rather than relying on the general population to inform me what they think the military thinks.

he has had one good suggestion (i.e. if you want to find out what the military thinks, ask the military...the main point I was trying to make) and lots of ad hominem attacks.

I didn't make anything up; I quoted your comment about n-hand sources verbatim.

You were complaining that the poll asked what Americans thought, and insinuated that the results didn't match up with what the troops actually thought.  

I recommended that to disabuse yourself of that misconception you actually talk to (or, rather, listen to) the troops directly, in which case you'd see that their opinions coincide with the ones shown by the poll under discussion.

Your problem seems to be that you don't like either the opinions of the troops in particular or the opinions of the American people in general on this topic, so you're simply lashing out and claiming that it's impossible to really know what anyone thinks.  I disagree.  The polls show us what Americans in general think, and the troops themselves can tell us what they think.  If you're willing to listen, that is.

Why, thank you for your constructive contribution to this discussion, which consists of the "actual arguments" of calling me "weak" and telling me to shut up.

You've clearly demonstrated the pointlessness of using vacuous ad hominem in place of an argument. Not in the way I think you intended, though.

wouldn't, perchance, be Rather, would it?  "I don't think that that's accurate, even if it is stated somewhere."; what does that mean?

Let's try this again.  This poll is valid because it captures the American people's perception at this point in time regarding the Dems' message and motive.  From a political standpoint, it matters little whether that perception is correct or incorrect, because in politics, perception is reality.  And the current perception is not very favorable to the Dems.

Using your logic, when the pollsters were asking the American public a couple of weeks ago, "Do you believe President Bush is honest and trustworthy?", they were just wasting their time.  If they really wanted to know the answer, all they had to do was go to President Bush and ask him -- he could've put the whole issue to bed in under a minute!

Now do you get it?

"wouldn't, perchance, be Rather, would it?"

No, it's not.  BTW, that's a pretty weak dig.  Asking whether my name was Lefty McLiberal would have been a bit more original, if just as stupid.

"I don't think that that's accurate, even if it is stated somewhere."; what does that mean?

Just what it says.  Your assertion about what this poll was meant to discover was not accurate, even if there was a statement somewhere.

You said that "The purpose, in this case, was to determine the American public's reaction to the competing political arguments here at home."  While I certainly concede that certain parts of the poll were aimed at that, the part cited by the original poster was not.  Asking people what effect the democrats are having on troop morale has no capacity to illuminate what you think was the subject of the poll.

From a political standpoint, it matters little whether that perception is correct or incorrect, because in politics, perception is reality.

I agree, but that's not what this poll was asking.  This poll asked one group how another group was reacting to the dems.  That doesn't tell us how people view the dems, it tells us how people think the military is reacting to the dems.  And that piece of information is useless except as a purely political tool.  And it's pretty transparent as a political tool.  

Point is, there is a lot of better ways/approaches to take to show how poorly people view the dems.  I just think that this was a very stupid way to go about it.

And the current perception is not very favorable to the Dems.

As well it should be given their schizophrenic reactions to the war.

Using your logic, when the pollsters were asking the American public a couple of weeks ago, "Do you believe President Bush is honest and trustworthy?", they were just wasting their time.  If they really wanted to know the answer, all they had to do was go to President Bush and ask him -- he could've put the whole issue to bed in under a minute!

Logic is escaping you on this thread.  Those two situations are not comparable in the least.  That hypothetical does not flow from my postings at all.  First, the two situations are not comparable.  Your hypothetical poll asks people to speculate on a character trait of the president.  That's far different than the poll we're talking about here where it was asking people to speculate on the military's reaction to the dems' actions.  This hypothetical would be more appropriate: I think it would be just as stupid to poll people on how George Bush is reacting to the democrats' charges that he is untrustworthy.  The better way would be to ask him directly.

Second, when the point of an inquiry is to determine whether someone is trustworthy or not, asking them doesn't really help because if they aren't trustworthy, they'll simply lie.

Nice try though.

I didn't make anything up; I quoted your comment about n-hand sources verbatim.

Never said that you didn't.

You were complaining that the poll asked what Americans thought, and insinuated that the results didn't match up with what the troops actually thought.

I was not insinuating anything other than I thought it was a stupid poll because it didn't ask the military directly.  I never said anything that insinuated that the results of the poll did not line up with what the military thought.  Although I personally believe that people's speculation on what the military thinks in this case is probably accurate, I do not know for sure.  But if I wanted to find out, I wouldn't ask the man on the street, I would go to the first-hand sources.

You're trying to read way too much into what was a simple criticism of the structure of the poll.

I recommended that to disabuse yourself of that misconception you actually talk to (or, rather, listen to) the troops directly, in which case you'd see that their opinions coincide with the ones shown by the poll under discussion.

And as I have said all along, if I wanted to find out about the troops' reaction to the democrats, I would ask them, rather than the man-on-the-street.  

The fact that the troops' opinions coincide with the poll under discussion is irrelevant to the question of what is the best way to find out what the military thinks.  Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Your problem seems to be that you don't like either the opinions of the troops in particular or the opinions of the American people in general on this topic,

WOW!  Now you're really putting words in my mouth.  If anything, my problem is that I voice my opinion about nitpicky concerns about polls that deal with apparently volatile subject-matter.  Please show me where I have expressed any opinion, one way or another, on the underlying question of how the military is reacting to the democrats.  I haven't because, frankly, I don't really care.  The men and women that I know who serve in uniform are professionals and will not let the petty carping of a group of useless politicians prevent them from doing their job.

so you're simply lashing out and claiming that it's impossible to really know what anyone thinks.

Uh, no.  All along, I have said that if we want to find out what the military thinks, we should ask the military and not a third-party.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I disagree.

Super, then we agree that you can, in fact, find out what someone thinks.  So then the question becomes what is the best way to go about finding that out.  Here's two possiblities.  Door #1: you can ask that person directly.  Door #2: you can ask another person what the person, whose thoughts you want to know, thinks.  Which door are you going to choose (keep in mind that there is not a Door #3 where you get to accuse me a being a liberal, traitor, anti-military, dumbocrat, or whatever other kind of stupidity you want to conjure out of my post for the mere fact that I don't appear to agree with you 100%)?

anti-Rather; instead of "fake but accurate", we have "true but inaccurate", at least in the eyes of the only person that matters in your little world -- YOU!

Despite my best efforts, you refuse to acknowledge that the purpose of this poll was to determine the American public's perception of the impact that the Dems' defeatism was having on the troops, and not the actual impact of the Dems' shrill rhetoric.  Okay.  On the basis of your interpretation, what, pray tell, was the pollsters' motivation for their follow-up question, the one which asked the respondents to speculate on the Democrats' motives?  I guess the troops would have been the right focus group for that question as well.  I can hear it now: Private Jenkins, to what do you think the American people ascribe the recent actions of Democratic politicians with regards to the Iraq war: patriotism or partisanship?  Yeah, that's a perfect question for the troops -- right.

There's a reason polls consist of more than one question, and it's not so each can exist in a vacuum.  The sum total is meant to form a coherent narrative in response to a specific question.  That's why you first ask the American people what they feel is the impact of the Dems' position, then ask them why they think the Dems' are acting the way they are.  You're failure to initally recognize the research methodology involved was a sign of ignorance; no shame there, we're all ignorant in one way or another.  However, your continued denial of the obvious after multiple explanations only displays your stupidity.