Redstate

Let's make history. . .again.  Bring the Senate up and past 60 GOP, and we'll have pounded the last stake in the heart of the Democratic party.

Photos like the one you are showcasing is designed to marginalize the so-called "anti-war" movement which is in reality mostly "anti-IRAQ war" and they are not the same thing. But to pretend that the American public is in support of the Iraq War and just a few "communists" are not is simply not factual.

The fact is, and you know this, the majority of the American public is unhappy with Mr. Bush's handling of the Iraq War, doesn't believe it had made us safer and that the money being spent there could be better spent at home.

I think it's a "fools errand" to try to marginalize the anti-Iraq war movement with unrepersentative photos like the one you displayed.

And unless uou have read "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin, I wouldn't be so quick to discount seemingly extremist conspiracy theories  that 9/11 was an inside job.  There is no doubt that to say 911 was an inside job with full certainty is a leap of faith, but it is not nearly as implausible as your piece contends, with just  simple "how-dare-they" perjorative labeling: "conspiracy theorists," "communists," "anti-capitalists" and no further evidence whatsoever, I might add.  

This attitude is part of the problem and part of the reason that a thorough investigation was not done by the 9/11 Commission or anyone else. But there is no doubt, as Griffin's book details, that there are many unanswered and, for one reason or another, unexamined questions RE the government's response to 9/11 and of course everyone is familiar with the August 6 PDB which was entitled "bin Laden deterined to strike within the U.S." which was completely ignored by Mr. Bush.

Yes, and the bombing of the WTC in 1993 was an inside job...and the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1998 was an inside job...and the attack of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 was an inside job.  

Give me a break.  The sign is what it it is, an expression of the mentality of those who marched in the protest.  Whether you like it or not, those are the type of loony, fringe elements that march under the anti-war banner.  Your attempt to rationalize this movement as mainstream is the distortion occurring here.  While the American public may have misgivings about how the Iraq War has been handled, it does not share your sentiment that 9/11 was a conspiracy.  

all the same arguments for two years

yet kerry voted for the war

and the american people chose who they wished to see us through

these between election polls are inferior to the real polls that make choices

and a significant % of those dissatisfied want Bush to be more of a hawk in Iraq and be more aggresive against the liberals here

there is not now and never will be, and I would argue, never has been, even in during vietnam, a mahority of americans that prefer defeat or betrayal

As to our relative safety on this date vs. past dates, I would only say that we were no safer in 1943 after 2-3 years of war than we were on dec 7, 1941, but that did not mean that would have been safer on that latter date had we not gone to war against the enemies.

Victory and that level of safety is the only acceptable result

Elections always prove what a majorty of americans really stand for

and it has never been appeasment

The left has given SO MANY sound-video clips for the GOP to sprinkle endlessly during the campaign.

Personally, I'd like the GOP to clean the Dem's clocks with issues/ideas (which we have the Dems lack), but it's clear that the Dems will actually lose on extremism turning off even their own base (electorial, not financial).

My liberal brother said something interesting the other day.  He lost his faith in elections in 2000.  In 2004, he lost his faith in the Democratic party.

You forgot Israel. The "movement" really, REALLY hates Israel.

It is a shame that we no longer have a rational responsible opposition party as debates between two parties better sharpens the issues and ensures the public's ability to assert its will by putting into power those that both agree with them and are loyal to a party committed to a singular vision.

But that is not possible.

A great debate is going on in the GOP concerning whether our goals can be acheuved best first thru reform of the big govt thru new incentives, that encourare personal responsibility, etc, we are addicted to and gradual weaning away or thru more radical change.

i have not decided . The radical appeals to me. But the Bush way also has merit.

All the talk about smaller govt though is really depedant on one or two main issues that constitue the bulk of the budget and that is medical costs and social security.

. . . has room for all kinds of nuts inside its "big tent", including:

• the kind that thinks GWB invaded Iraq to benefit his "oil buddies".
  
• the kind that thinks that GWB dynamited New Orleans' levees to kill African-Americans.
  
• the kind that thinks marriage = rape.
  
• NAMBLA.

The Democratic Party's inability to diassociate itself with illogical extremism has branded it as the party of illogical extremists.

H.L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." The Left is out to prove him wrong.

all those that support the war think all that those that question the war are conspirators with Al Qaeda.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/dissenter.jpg

I don't see how embracing absurd notions about people you disagree with helps anyone.

"H.L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." The Left is out to prove him wrong."

48% says he's right.

They might not be the majority party, but they're far from broke, electorally.  Hey, if the Governor wrecks things in Ohio badly enough, we could have a problem in 2008.

signed,

Mister Pessimism (just for today, I hope)

the protestors are those that disagree with them embracing other than the notions written on their signs, spoken from their mouths and printed on their websites? And if those are the ones you are referring too, then did you just not also agree the notions are indeed absurd?

Just asking. Didn't understand what notions you are referring to.

I know that back during my years in the dem party, even as county chair, I increasingly became uncomfortable associating with the extrmeists and came to see myself as a front man for them as their power increased and ecided that having their votes was not worth it as the party came to more reflect them.

And so we have the right to assume that the non-sign carriers are at least acquiesent or indifferent to being associated with the extreme messages when they don't make clear their disagreement

...with overtly fascist or totalitarian groups at the core*.  Heck, we barely organize counterprotests at all: P J O'Rourke's comment about the Right was dead on the money, there.  And it's hardly a secret that the totalitarians have hijacked the antiwar movement: we've been blipping telling them for several years, now.  Do you honestly think that we're going to ease up in pointing this out now?

Moe

*For that matter, most of the true fringe right groups and outright fascists are against the war.

At noon eastern time today on c-span is the pro America Rally by Move America Forward But you would not know this bt reading any of the blogs. The blogs on the right seem to be doing a very good job of ignoring Melanie Morgan and making sure no one hears of her efforts to support the troops. But the blogs on the right are doing an excellent job of covering the Anti American protests

If I understand you correctly, you are incorrect.  This is not absurd, it is reality.  

As stated below, most of us conservatives don't organize or protest or march.  Consequently, you won't see me carrying a sign equating resistance to the war with being a member of Al Qaeda.  But what you have seen and heard over and over again are the signs and slogans of this radical anti-war rump group (the Cindy Sheehan-Michael Moore-Kos crowd) that, until others demonstrate otherwise, controls the Democratic Party.  

If the Left and the Democratic Party want to shed this image, then quit ceding center stage to these individuals.  

that the debate is solely the province of the GOP.

There are too many highly intelligent, rational people on the left to discount them.  They make leaps in logic that seem illogical to you, and I, but that is due to a very different set of base beliefs about the nature of the world.  When the starting assumptions between two groups of people differ so radically it seems to one side that the other side is illogical.  This is true on both sides.  Currently Liberals and Conservatives have vastly different sets of basic beliefs about the nature of the world, the US, and our political system as to make dialogue between the two groups very difficult.  We use the same words, but we talk right past each other.  Using one set of core beliefs one side makes a logical argument that makes no sense to the other, and vice versa.  As illogical as the left seems to us, we seem as illogical to them.  

to have a true dialogue between the groups an effort needs to be made so that the dialogue starts with  an agreement about the basic core beliefs we use to base the dialogue on.

that there are some higly illogical arguments being made by the left that appeal to emotion, and hinge on other logical fallacies.

Its just that, as one who spent 25 years in league with the left due to basic classical liberal values and seing the left slowly evolve to distort and abandon those values and become intellectually bankrupt and thus unable to compete effectively in the new non-msm dominated arena of ideas, as evidenced by thier loss of power in all branhes of goverment,

and seeing that the conservatives have mostly accepted the good that resulted from liberalism thru say 1965,

and also seeing that the only way the dem party can win national elections is to mask their far left views or their far left allies and money sources in conservative issues with carter and  clinton who at least ran as moderates

the dem party itself in a sense concedes that their liberal iseas as presently articulated are not marketable.

What i find fascinating is that the far left has bought the dem party and is no longer willing to mask their views or have them masked for the first time since really McGovern, who campaigned agianst a real disasterously fought war after 50,000 were dead.

Mondale, Dukakis and kerry even tried to play conservative but couldn't pull it off.

McGovern like numbers is what any leftist candiadte will get.

My conclusion about the real debate is my judgment that the current platform offered as alternative "ideas" by the left are so ridiculous that the vast majority of voters reconize them as irrelevant offerings.

I don't even think the new left money people care about winning. i think they simplu ues the party for their own vanity and amusement.

they aren't serious and are not taken seriously no matter Bush';s rating

5

Two things.

First:

It is a movement that hates capitalism, hates Christianity, hates Bush, and hates you. The peace movement is no longer about peace. It is about the destruction of our way of life

Kind of shrill, I think.  You may have a useful point to make.  If you want people who don't already agree with you to listen, you may want to roll back the volume a bit.

Second:

Don't confuse folks like ANSWER, NY 911 for Truth, etc., with the very many ordinary folks who are discouraged about our progress in Iraq, unclear about what we are trying to do there, and skeptical about the President's ability to define, articulate, and successfully carry out a plan that yields a result that's better than what was there before.  

I think, really, that folks like you, who call for continued support for the war and for Bush's foreign policy generally, owe the latter group of folks your full attention and respect.  They are also owed clear, credible answers to their questions.  If those are not forthcoming, you are likely to find yourselves returned to minority status, and deservedly.  My two cents.

Amos,

You are partly right and there are some truly patriotic and well intentioned people who don't agree with the reasons for going to war and how is is currenlty being handled.

The problem is that they have let themselves become involved with groups like the ones you mention.  If they truly wanted to make a point they would disassociate themselves from the radical left and maybe people would actually listen to what they are trying to say.  As of now you can not hear anything they are trying to get out because of all the static caused by the nutjobs on the fringe who suck all the air out or our atmosphere.

...the concept of getting rid of the totalitarian nutjobs is starting to gain support among the saner elements of the antiwar movement.  I think that one more catastrophic election cycle will cement the lesson, but that's for the voters to decide.  We'll see who's right and who's wrong in November '06.

And I would dearly love to have had a consistently rational debate on Iraq prior to the liberation, amos.  We just weren't offered one.

about, as you said,:

"what we are trying to do there, and skeptical about the President's ability to define, articulate, and successfully carry out a plan that yields a result that's better than what was there before."

is what is so perplexing to us!! especially after 911, the history of inaction against bin laden and saddam for a decade, the clear, AND BETTER ARTICULATED identical arguments made by Clinton from 1998-2000  to justify bombing, congressional action supporting regime change and Clinton's direct ties of bin  laden with iraq to justify the sudan bombing, the massive literature and news reports by the msm and dems  BEFORE 911 about saddam's public spport, funding and harboring for terror, including the presence of al qaida's zarqawi led branch in northern iraq prior to 911, the conduct of saddam in defying the un and ceasefire, clinton';s explicit statements before 911 and after but before the iraq war that the greatest threat was that saddam would ally with terrorists to attcak us with wmd,

and, the resolutions passed by a near unanimous congress and bush's clear policy articulated to congress and the un.

is how educated people can be unclear about the issues and justness of our cause post 911 when we cannot risk guessing wrong when there is doubt, especially given all the above that is not in doubt.

There is no doubt in my mind that you are sincere but when so many formerly considered moderate dems mimic the same denials of pre 911 history one has to conclude that they are simply lying given their previously exhibited ability to read and comprehend english.

You also so said:

"I think, really, that folks like you, who call for continued support for the war and for Bush's foreign policy generally, owe the latter group of folks your full attention and respect.  They are also owed clear, credible answers to their questions.  If those are not forthcoming, you are likely to find yourselves returned to minority status, and deservedly.  My two cents."

First of all its worth at least 3 cents! haha

The same questions have been asked and answered for over two years and we, as a people, decided the issue in 2004 with the same questions on the table.

The unwillingness of so many citizens to now, especially and  at least after the election, to unite for the sake of the success of the strategy we as a people chose and which our soldiers are carrying out, causes us great distress and makes it very hard to dignify proper motives to continued vitriol that gives the enemy hope.

We do, well at least I do, believ it is important to continually refute the anti war argument due to the large kerry vote to encourage the troops and try to ameliorate the effect the dissent has to embolden the enemy

although i do not beleive that any candidate for surrender could win.

I respect honest disagreement, but i don't consider opposition to our policy to be justified based on the facts. Most issues do have alternative acceptable positions. Not this one.

I write off honest disagreement to ignorance of history and an affluent soft society far removed from war and so i try to educate.

good points you made though

of New Yorkers:

Released: August 30, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

...

On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act.

There was no US coverage of this startling poll or the facts supporting the Canadians' conclusions, and there has been virtually no debate on the victim families' scores of still unanswered questions.

...

Nicholas Levis of NY911truth.org, an advisor on the poll, agrees,

"The 9/11 Commission gave us a plenty of 'recommendations', but far more plentiful were the discrepancies, gaps and omissions in their supposedly 'final' report.

...

Zogby International conducted interviews of 808 adults chosen at random in New York State. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 8/24/04 through 8/26/04. The margin of error is +- 3.5 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

That's not what the sign said.

But ANSWER and the rest of the ilk marching are giving, at least, tacit moral support to those that want the defeat of the US.

When Stalinist/anti-Semitic ANSWER organized "anti-war"...no... anti-American marches back in 2003, Saddam expressed his delight with them.

At least Charles Lindbergh had the good graces to shutup after Pearl Harbor.

and a significant % of those dissatisfied want Bush to be more of a hawk in Iraq and be more aggresive against the liberals here

Finally, someone reminds us! Kudos.

There's a difference between assumption and fact.  A poll that supports the idea that a majority of individuals believe aliens exist does not, in fact, mean they exist.  

I still have seen no evidence of a conspiracy.  

Dailykos complaining about precisely this problem.  It appears that many on the left were very bothered by the presence of ANSWER and other like minded groups, and had serious problems with their politics.  It seems to me that painting everyone on the left under the umbrella of ANSWER is similar to when the left paints all of us conservatives on the right under the umbrella of far right hate groups.  It's an illicit use of synedoche (taking a part for a whole), and a very marginal and small part at that.  As someone above mentions, it would be more effective to address the arguments of the representative majority...  Especially given the poll numbers which indicate that this is far from a marginal movement.

If they truly wanted to make a point they would disassociate themselves from the radical left and maybe people would actually listen to what they are trying to say

Lots of them have.  What prominent Democrat spoke, or even appeared, at the rally this weekend?  What do you make of this thread on Kos?  Let's go back a couple of years to this article by noted critic of Bush, David Corn.  I could go on.

Nobody really gives a crap about the anti-war rally.  It gives a lot of angry, frustrated folks a chance to make a lot of noise, get their frustration off their chests, and feel like they're doing something.  It makes colorful copy, so it'll get about a week's worth of play in the papers and on TV.  But, in the big picture, it doesn't amount to much.  Shouting about it here is kind of a waste of your time, IMO, except perhaps as a way to rally the troops against the big bad commie bogeyman.

More to my point -- if it suits you, by all means feel free to dismiss all folks who are critical or at least skeptical of our current foreign policy as wackos.  Bray about that they hate America, God, Christianity, Mom and apple pie.  Call them all commies or commie fellow travelers, whose secret desire is to destroy this nation and our way of life.  

Do so, and you insult them, and you insult the very real and reasonable concerns they have.  Folks don't like being ignored, insulted, and misrepresented.  Isn't that what I hear oh so often from put upon red staters?  Continue as you are now, and you will lose the support of the nation.

I'm here to tell you that many, many, many ordinary people are losing confidence in the President, in his foreign policy, and most specifically in our progress in Iraq.  I bet each of you knows at least one of those people.  I bet some of you are one those people.  This isn't happening because they are weak, spineless appeasers.  It isn't happening because they hate America.  It's happening because the President's credibility has been eroded by how the war and the reasons given to justify it have played out in reality, and because the President has failed to articulate in any concrete, credible, and sustained way why the war in Iraq is vital to our interests.  Bush has failed to lead.  Period.

Feel free to tell me I'm in the wrong, if that makes you feel better.  Blame it all on the dreaded MSM, they're a pretty handy scapegoat.  In any case, it's not me you have to convince.  I am, frankly, speaking here as a somewhat friendly voice.  Make of it what you wish.  The results will be on your own heads, electorally, and in other matters, on all of ours.

1. 803 small sample
   
2. NY full of dems that wanted to beat bush more than anser a poll honestly and rationally
   
3. adults,...at least chronologically
   
4. Aug 2004

Too long after 911 for libs to abandon their world view

nd I would dearly love to have had a consistently rational debate on Iraq prior to the liberation, amos.  We just weren't offered one.

Sorry, I can't let this pass without comment.

You couldn't pay me enough money to jump back into that debate at this point, because it was simply too damned painful, and there's no point in it now.  What I will say is that your statement as given above is, simply and plainly, false.

to know when to shut up! here here

When people from the far fringes of the left hold up weird signs, that's a sign that the left has lost its way.

When people from the far fringes of the right hold up weird signs, that's a sign that most conservatives don't protest or march.

It's all so clear now.

I respect honest disagreement, but i don't consider opposition to our policy to be justified based on the facts.

Clearly, not everyone agrees.

On the one hand, you basically re-inforce the poster's assertion that the rally is composed of a group of angry, disaffected Leftists ("Nobody really gives a crap about the anti-war rally.  It gives a lot of angry, frustrated folks a chance to make a lot of noise, get their frustration off their chests...") who harbor extreme views and then proceed to lambaste him and us for making that very assertion ("by all means feel free to dismiss all folks who are critical or at least skeptical of our current foreign policy as wackosDo so, and you insult them, and you insult the very real and reasonable concerns they have").  

Well, which is it? or rather, what are they?    

Glad to hear that some on the far left are bothered enough to at least express problems with the kook fringe left. Wonder if they will ever be bothered enough to denounce them publicly at rallies.

As I am sure mainstream repubs would do if the KKK or John Birch showed up.

But we regularly address the left's arguments, which are the same from the near to the far left from what I hear, except for some elected dem libs that continue to pound the drum of defeatism lest more troops or a "plan" be forthcoming, despite failed predictions that the election Iraqi election would fail doe to the widespead support for the beheaders.

debate is healthy

appreciate it

There was a picture of a group holding a "911 was an inside job" banner. I haven't seen a large set of pictures from the protest yet, but taking previous like-minded protests of the sort as my sample, I'd say there is little to suggest that anti-war protestors in general subscribe to that sort of crazieness.

Furthermore, I think it is bad form to make such a connection. Making the central charge against a group that they are completely nuts, is not useful. All one has to do is point to the thousands of other protestors not having anything to do with the nutjobs and all of a sudden it is you that looks like the conspiracy theorist.

We saw this recently with NARAL and John Roberts. They tried to associate him with some extremists. It was obviously false. I don't believe anyone, with good reason, has bothered to hear out any additional charges since that time.  

I've had experience working in organizations on both sides of the "big ditch". There are nutjobs on both sides, often with far too much influence. The particular of flavor of nut shown in the picture is also common. Some people just like to latch on to conspiracy theories so they don't have to think. It is has been my experience that not only are they people not representative of any significant group within the "wings" but rarely do they even follow any identifiable ideology to begin with. They are conspiracy theorists for the sake of conspiracy theories. The site advertised, http://ny911truth.org/, is a good example of this.

Similiarly, a counter-protestor held a sign claiming the protestors worked with Al Qaeda. It would be incorrect to associate supporters of the war with this nutjob.

but the so-called "anti-war" Left religiously rejects them.

To a true-believer in extraterrestrial aliens, the absense of proof IS proof of a conspiracy.

To every "but Iraq was never a threat" acolyte, no logic, no history, no clarity will sway them from their cult-like thinking.

And this is fed by a MSM, addicted to scandal driven ratings first and anti-Bush/anti-Republican agenda second.

After watching the coverage of Katrina, that "regular Joe" could be forgiven for thinking that GW had the power to kick Blanco out of her office and short-drop the 82nd airborne onto New Orleans, but didn't because he wanted poor blacks to die.

For one city...You're right it's small for a national poll...

And would you also discount the Canadian poll...Is Canada full of democrats too?

By far, most of the folks who are, at best, uneasy about the strategies, direction, and execution of our current foreign policy neither support ANSWER, nor were in DC this weekend.

Focus on ANSWER and you're dealing with an easy target, but one which is pretty insignificant in any real terms.

Ignore the very real concerns of folks whose support for Bush's foreign policy, if in fact present to begin with, is faltering, and you lose the core.  More significantly, you put the security of the nation at risk.

I'll put it to you again, for no other reason than that I think it's crucial.  Bush needs to define and articulate what our goals are in Iraq, how we're going to achieve them, how long it will take, how much it will cost, and how we will know we've succeeded.  If the answer is it's gonna take 100,000 guys twenty years at 5 billion a month, and what we'll get out of it is a semi-Islamic republic that's at least not unfriendly to our interests, which is probably about right, we better hear that straight up and damned soon.

"Flypaper" doesn't do it, nor does a glorious far-off dream of a democratic middle east.  To be frank, if perhaps harsh, 9/11 doesn't do it anymore, at least as regards Iraq.  Nobody sees a real connection there, and there are many good reasons for that.  What folks want are facts, concerning the actual matter at hand, which is IRAQ, plainly stated, and that have some congruence with the reality that they can see with their own damned eyes.

To put it a bit more plainly -- folks are losing interest in the vision of what the swamp will look like when it's drained and dry.  They want to know what the plan is for dealing with the alligator whose choppers are currently engaged with their butt.  If you can't answer that, folks are going to lose interest in your master plan for swampland redevelopment.  The question isn't the goodness of the vision.  The question is the credibility of and confidence in the visionary.

Offered as a public service of amos, inc.  I know where I stand on this, so it's all the same to me.  Make of it what you will.

Polls prove nothing but what the people who took them think.  However, in this case, the people who took the poll are also in a position to know more than the average citizen about this 9/11 attack as they were closest to it.  This Qogby opinion poll shows that their opinion is one of  skepticism toward the governmental response.

And remember, I was responding to the individual who said that the banner saying "9/11 was an inside job" was just a couple of fringe freaks out in left field.  I think that NY Zogby poll shows that more than a few fringe freaks question the government response and the subsequent "investigation" which followed it.

As for facts and proof, unless and until you read "The New Pearl Harbor" there's probably no way you would or could hear about any of the contradictions and unanswered questions, as they simply haven't been covered by the main stream media.

I in no way believe that the government has been proven to have been complicit in the 9/11 attack.  But by the same token, I am willing to entertain the possibility and an investigation to determine whether that's true or not.  Simply closing your eyes to even that possibility and shutting down any investigation along those lines as "preposterous" or just a "conspiracy theory" is hardly the way to find out the full truth.

...so I will simply and plainly reply: no, my statement was not false.

what's the difference. all post modern libs

But the canadian poll isn't described and the *)# poll is a STATE, not a CITY poll...

But, see also answers 2,3 and 4

I would not doubt that dems on the eve of the election would say this and that a not insignificant % of those saying it actually have talked themselves into such conspiracy theories or are simply delusional, yet able to naswer the phone and speak.

But what is the point, as you see it for this info to the original subject here? Do you believe this?

the issue of Iraq itself for a moment, I don't think most of the people at the march gave a damn about ANSWER. Looking at some of the Kos diaries posted, particularly the ones with photos, suggests that most people against the war want nothing to do with ANSWER, in particular their Israel stance. The vast majority of the photos on the scene corraborate this.

5

thinking "9/11 was an inside job" and thinking "we need further investigation" are not the same thing; see frequent RedState diaries about Able Danger.

We disagree on this point.  I'm extraordinarily happy to leave it at that.

I don't like getting into fights with value-adders to RedState, anyway.  No fun.

You get the sense of all these conspiracy theories that they all depend upon the infallibility of government.  They assume that because bureaucracy did/didn't do x and y, and because ANY rational organization would have done x and y, that something's up.  

These nuts obviously have never worked for a very large organization, let alone the government.  If they had, they would understand that behavior is anything but rational in groups these size.  That is really hard to accept for some, but the reality is is that a large group of people in this world are focused on their own narrow self-interest and "do their job."  Organizations can be really marvelous or really incompetent.

I'm remembering the beginning history of the Nazi Party.  If I recall they gained power by setting fire to the Reichstag and then blamed it on Commies.  So if the monsterous Nazis only stooped to arson of an uninhabited building to secure power, why in the heck would Bush resort to such massive destruction to do the same?  Doesn't pass the common sense test...plus such comparison requires one to equate the Nazis to Republicans, which is completely and utterly ridiculous.  

But wait...now the loony theories are starting to make sense...if you listen to the rhetoric of the looney left, they really believe Bush is the same as Hitler.  This is just their way to back us into that conclusion, since no rational person could believe such a thing.  Wow, this is really sad.  The sadder part is that the people who peddle such nonsense are the propsective Hitlers of the United States in 2005.  They are the types who conspire to steal power.  Now that's scary.

baseless allegation that the Bush Admin. conspired with the 911 terrorists be investigated is absurd. And if congress is to address all such baseless allegations just because a poll of of a state dominated by libs that desire to have their opponent defeated in an election, then

there would be no time left to pass new laws and it would cement the fcat of the insanity now dominant in the dem party!

So, yeah, I favor such an investigation.

Let's call cindy as the first witness!

I'm not going toe-to-toe on the reasons why we should have gone, or not.  Too late.

What I'm saying here, which you are free to embrace or ignore at your whim, is that a lot of folks are losing confidence in the answers that have been given.

If you'd like to blame that on their stupidity, their hatred of America, the malign influence of the MSM, that's your prerogative.

If you'd actually like a good outcome, I'd say it behooves you to understand why the answers that have been given aren't sticking, and address that.

My advice, for what it's worth:  forget about ANSWER.  Forget about Cindy Sheehan.  Forget about "inside job" conspiracists.  Frankly, they don't really matter.  

What does matter, if we actually want to make something good come of Iraq, is sustaining the willingness of rank and file America to bear the cost of being there.  Those folks are losing confidence, and they need to know what the hell we can expect to achieve, how much it will cost, and why it's worth it to us.  Maybe the answers to those questions are obvious to you, but apparently they are not to everyone.

They showed that NY believes just that...there was prior knowledge...

My reading of the question was, "did the administration have good reason to know that America was going to be attacked somehow and not do enough to prevent it?"  That's distinct from "did the administration help plan the 9/11 attacks" or even "did Bush get a call from Bin Laden telling him that the Twin Towers were going to be attacked and then do nothing about it"?

"consciously failed," which without knowing the raw analysis and systematics of the poll, could mean anything. That could refer to any general policy or specific action of the last 20 years.

(also agree with jb here)

it has more to do with the fact that elite democrat ideology is represented by banners as the subject of this post. the conservative ideology (if there is a consensus one at all) is not represented by crazies who think all anti-war protestors are in partnership with terrorists, though personally i don't think it's a point that can be denied or confirmed.

the point is, looking at the changing face of the democratic party, there's no consistency...lets waver with the winds of the political climate.

i'd rather stay the course, myself.

I agree that the Democratic party spends way too much time chasing polls and not nearly enough time defending positions of principle.  I don't think the Republican party is perfect in this regard, either, but its arguably better.

However, that has nothing to do with weird viewpoints held by fringe groups.  There is simply no support for the claim that the "elite democratic ideology" (whatever that is) somewhow reflects the idea that "9/11 was an inside job".  Find me one Democratic governer, Congressperson, or someone of similar stature, who has espoused such a view.  In fact, as you'll see from the left-leaning commentators here, there's essentially no support for that view outside the whacko fringe.  However, as you prove in your own post, many on the right are at least sympathetic to the idea that protestors are somehow in partnership with terrorists.

soon after 911

if you want a link, i'll get it

But even supposing there are a very few elected officials that hold this view, there's a big leap between that and asserting that it represents the mainstream of Democratic thought.

seems to imply people thought she said it, she denied it, she lost her seat in the primary in 02 because of it, people eventually realised she didn't say it, and then she won her seat back in 04.

i just don't respect the equivocal answers nearly always given by fellow elected dems when asked to comment on the rantings of McKinney, Ted the swimmer kennedy, Gore, etc.

And i don';t respect the fact that elected dems ne seem to be outraged enough to initiate denunciations

you must realize or at least understand that what i'm telling you is the mainstream gop view

and that is that we deem the usual statements made by the elected leaders of the dem party given that we are at war to be VERY OUTRAGEOUS and in no way ameliorated by the fcat that many many dems are miuch more outrageous

many of the statements made by prominent elected dem leaders you deem the mainstream would not have been thinkable during wwii and  also not tolerated

the conduct of the dem party since 911 and even since the fla 200 election astounds us and makes us uncomfortable much like being forced to endure an unruly child that aparent won't  spank

truly

later

consider this.................

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MEDALOFHONOR-09-
21-05

I'm a Gentile for the Jews and damn proud of it. Any of you anti-semites have a problem with that?

I am sure the international A.N.S.W.E.R. a.. holes

have no comment. But then what do you expect from morally bankrupt a..holes.

and have seen the tape of the original statement and seen her defend the statement live and on tv and radio.

And have written columns about it side by side with a column she submitted.

She's not ashamed of the statement and doesn't deny it and doesn't want to be defended as not having said it. She's proud and thinks the 911 coom'n confirms her comspiracy.

link coming soon

By the way, the candidate (majette) that beat her mysteriously decided not to run for re-election infavor of a run for seante that she had no chance of winning...

wonder why? McKinney's links to radical muslims are also not denied

she is a piece of work pal

for the additional info

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3079

NOTICE HOW SHE ONLY INCLUDES PART OF THE STATEMENT ON HER WEBSITE.

http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/about.html

2nd statement on saudi-giuliani matter

http://www.jppi.org/washington_post_10_29_01.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg102901.shtml

The Democratic Party is dead. It's like the Whigs. Denying the obvious (9/11) in favor of the blame going to people they hate (Republicans, white guys, whoever) instead of the foreigners who did it out of religious hate and an agenda to conquer the world.

Most people are unhappy about the war. No clear leadership or agenda. No massive mobilization. No willingness to crush totally the enemy forever.

If you ask however the American people, do you want to surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq? In Afghanistan? To be defeated by Osama? The answer you will get is a resounding NO.

Already serious Dem thinkers are calling for surrender to bin Laden in a "negotiated peace." Good luck with that.

ANSWER, United for PEace and Justice, Sheehan, the other groups like Code Pink and Raging Grannies ...

They are all World Workers Party (a Communist/Stalinist spin-off of the Communist PArty USA) organizations and driven by the hatred of Jews, Israel, the US, capitalism, and the mainstream values of Americans.

This is your peace movement. Good luck with that.

and others have stated that they don't "know" that Osama was responsible for 9/11 for certain. Howard Dean even speculated that Bush may have "allowed" 9/11 to happen as an "inside job."

Can't get any more dysfunctional, conspiracy-laden, and anti-American than that.

Failing to profile Muslim men, failing to bar people from flying that screeners are "hinky" about, failing to attack vigorously Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi for allowing/helping various prior terrorist attacks against the US (Cole, Khobar Towers, 98 Embassy attacks etc) meant that both CLINTON AND BUSH were asleep at the wheel.

People in NYC however do not have any special "knowledge" of government failures to prevent the 9/11 attacks. That requires reading through various reports and documents detailing what the government at all levels did and did not do to combat terrorism prior to 9/11. Things such as simply denying Muslim men visas to the US and entry into it would have stopped 9/11. No hijackers, no attacks.

However, such actions were and are today still politically unacceptable. At a time when NYCLU objects to bag searches on the Subways to prevent a London style bombing attack it's stupid to bash Government. People, activists, the media, and Dems have made it clear that civil liberties are more important than stopping terrorism. They got the government policies they wanted. Protecting civil liberties from abuse was more important than stopping terrorism. Fine. But don't ask for forward progress when you put the car in reverse.

does that have to do with anything I'm talking about?

And yes it IS ANSWER. That's who is in charge of the PEace Movement and really, the core of the Dem Party.

Wes Clark paid court to Cindy Sheehan. So will most of the other serious Dem contenders in 08 (Hillary, Biden, etc).

The Peace Movement broadly holds:

1. America "deserved" 9/11 because of our support for Israel which should not exist; if 9/11 wasn't some Evil Chimpy McHilter Buscho conspiracy.
   
2. Bin Laden is a "reasonable" man and we should negotiate with him.
   
3. We should need to immediately surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan to bin Laden (bin Laden and his deputies are who we are fighting there).
   
4. No military effort in defense of the US anywhere is justified because "Bush lied!" about WMDs in Iraq.

How this responds to the challenge of Al Qaeda trying to kill Americans until we surrender to them, Iran's nukes, Pakistan's nukes, Saudi's financial support for every anti-American terrorist in sight, etc. is unknown. There is no answer. They have nothing to say about it pretending that every problem in the world stems from America being evil and if we are just nice to bin Laden the problems go away. Failure to address the problems.

You should try www.hijackingcatastrophe.org and judge for yourselves. I was floored and shocked by it! It is a must-see. Never mind the crazed lefties!!

days after cindy called her out on the war and after hillary finished in single digits in a DKos poll. And i think Mccain alos accompanied hillary?

And Bill said last week during his 4 day bush back stab ode to the left, said he would have met with her again!!

Rush saw all Bill's kerry policy affirmations as evidence the far left has won the battle for party dominence

I'm sure you must have one since you're using quotation marks when talking about what someone else said.

...reporting from Iraq has been hideously incomplete, and that's being charitable. Victories, such as the recent one by Third Armored Cavalry and the Iraqi Third Division at Tal Afar, have gone almost unreported. American heroism and accomplishment have been shortchanged, and I find it very hard not to conclude that the effort to do so is not deliberate.

I have no, none, nada, confidence in the Running Dog media to report the news from the theater of operations. Organizations such as Al-Reuters, who have yet to use the word "terrorist" in their reporting, preferring to use the word "militant", cannot be counted on to provide balanced reporting from Iraq. Zarqawi and bin Laden understand that their greatest ally in this fight is the American news media. The Vietminh before them understood this as well. You, apparently, do not.

Yes, perhaps George Bush and his national security team do owe America a more consistent explanation of the whys and wherefores of the Iraq campaign, and where that campaign fits into the larger war against Islamic Fascism. However, the anti-war Party that the Democrats have become owes the American people an explanation for their newfound opposition to the war. And please don't try to convince me that the Democrats would send thousands of troops in a McCain-like effort to make Iraq whole again. They wouldn't. Party leaders in the end act as their base voters want them to act. The base Democrats want peace, not victory.

That, Amos, is the truth. You may not like that truth, but there you have it. Democrats could no more win this war than they could fly over the moon-their party doesn't produce Franklin D. Roosevelts anymore. And the news media, which has become the Democratic Party's propaganda arm, reflects its prejudices.

Why should I trust that news media, most of whose members stay within the Green Zone and hardly ever venture out with the maneuver battlions to report what is really happening? Michael Yon's reporting is a refreshing change, and the difference is that he planted himself with the 1/24th Infantry day in and day out. Most of the crap that passes for reporting in Iraq these days is body count, with no larger thought of what is actually going on in the field.

If I depended on those lickspittle jackals from the MSM to understand what is going on in Iraq, I'd oppose the war too. But I don't. And I think I have an understanding of the larger stakes.

Fighting fascism is an inherent good. Too bad the news media doesn't believe that. I still wonder if the Democrats do.

My likes and dislikes are of no interest to anyone but me, and even I frequently find them tedious.  They're absolutely and completely peripheral to the question at hand.

Maybe MSM coverage of Iraq is fair, maybe it isn't.  Whether it is or isn't, the softening of support for the war in Iraq is a reality.  Blaming MSM coverage for that fact won't make things any better.

Why are we in Iraq?

How long will be there?

What will it cost us in lives and money?

What will Iraq look like when we are done?

Why will that be worth our effort?

Those questions need to be answered, clearly and credibly, by the President and his staff.  Every single freaking day, three times a day, if need be.  That's not happening.

The President is not making the case in a way that inspires the confidence of rank and file America.  Blame it on MSM, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, whoever you like.  Blame the American public for their lack of spine and general moral flabbiness.  Blame the tooth fairy if that suits.  Doesn't matter.  The case is not being made in a way that creates confidence in the goodness, feasibility, and effectiveness of our foreign policy.  If that doesn't change, we're in big trouble.

If you want to spend your time laughing at the funny commie clowns, that's your option.  If you want to make something good happen, you'll put your attention to something more productive.  The "you" here refers to conservative Republicans like folks here on RS, who endorse and support Bush's foreign policy.  You have a tough hill to climb at the moment, spend your energy wisely.

5

Is this the statement you're referring to?

"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11," said McKinney. "What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?....What do they have to hide?"

Once again, this statement seems to imply negligence, not active participation, although there is enough ambiguity there to keep the conspiracy theorists happy as well.

is requested on another thread the response you provide is going to determine if that will be your last post on this site.

The poll does not support the argument you're making.  There's a difference between negligence and complicity.  You're arguing complicity while the poll respondents are arguing negligence.  Most Americans would simply not agree that the Bush administration was somehow directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.  The argument is preposterous.    

You libs just don't understand that elections are the only polls that matter when you have a leader and a gop majority that will not cut off funds.

The between election polls are not news. they are designed to support an editorial position of the msm and the impotent dem party,

But Bill with Dick Morris aint running this show. And neither is mcgovern, carter, mondale, dukakis, gore or kerry.

but if they make you feel better and give you hope that we might surrender, then by all means climb that hill

msm polls won't bring us off our hill

I guess I don't follow your logic.  On the one hand, I am supposed to heed the warning of this march yet at the same time discount the marchers.  

now, listen to the lawyer

the poll language does not describe mere negligence

I can see a weak but possible argument for an interpretation of reckless disregard, which is the step right before intentional acts in civil law

but recklessness can also be punished like intentional acts when a duty to act exists

negligence implies an acidental act or omision

the word consciously excludes an accident or mistake

the poll language clearly...geez. I can't beleive my son is still in 2nd grade... heck can you read and comprehend

this is the proble we have with you people

but we love you

consciously failed!!!!

let that sink in

get daniel webster

First, the minutiae:

You libs just don't understand that elections are the only polls that matter when you have a leader and a gop majority that will not cut off funds.

Two things here:

1.  What do you think my position is on our continued involvement in Iraq?  If you are interested, it's in the public record here on RS.  Feel free to look it up.
   
   
2.  I don't give rat's behind about polls and polls aren't what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about sustaining the willingness of the core American public to bear the cost of the war in Iraq.  It's at risk.  Don't believe me?  I think you better wake up.

The larger point, again:

It's no doubt a lot of fun to poke fun at the silly hippy kids and communists who want to free Mumia, save the whales, and make the world a safer place for lab rats everywhere.  It's also a waste of your time.

If you are really interested in supporting the President's foreign policy and bringing about a successful outcome in Iraq, you will forget about ANSWER, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and the other low hanging fruit.  Instead, you will concentrate on addressing the questions that many, many ordinary, rank and file Americans have about the progress of the war in Iraq.

What are we trying to achieve?

How long will it take?

How much will it cost?

How will we know we have succeeded?

What will Iraq look like when we are done?

Why will that be good for us, and worth the sacrifices we will have to make to bring it about?

If you think the answers to these questions are obvious and above question to any but the most deluded lefty, you are absolutely and positively dead wrong.

What I am telling you from a pretty friendly point of view as regards this issue is that people are losing confidence in the President and his foreign policy.  The reason I'm repeating this over and over in this thread is not to pick on the President, conservatives, or anyone here on RS.  It's to encourage you to quit worrying about ANSWER and deal with the normal people.  They are the ones whose confidence you need to regain and retain.

For better or worse, Bush put a lot of chips on the table in going into Iraq.  If we lose there, or in fact even if we don't but fail to succeed in some notable way, we're in deep trouble.  It's unlikely that all of the goals we nominally set out to achieve there are now, or perhaps ever were, achievable.  We need to figure out and articulate what positive outcome we will achieve, and then articulate how we will get there.  That will be a big job, and will require the sustained support of the American people, probably well beyond Bush's presidency.

It's no longer about the goodness of the vision.  It's about the credibility of, and confidence in, the President and his ability to make that vision happen.  He needs to make his case.  The case he needs to make is not that Saddam was a bad man, not that terrorism is bad, not that a change in the political culture of the middle east would be a good thing.  He needs to make the case that we have specific, concrete, achievable goals in Iraq, and that he knows how we can achieve them.  That is not happening now.

I actually have a lot to do today, and it's not getting done, because I'm taking the time to repeat this same thing over and over and over again.  The reason I'm doing this is because it's very very important.  The President is failing to provide crucial leadership here, and if he doesn't turn it around, it will cost us.

Thanks -

you should have no trouble giving credible answers to Amos' five questions.

Some of the marchers.  I've seen number ranging from 150,000 to 600,000.  The high number comes from the left, so we'll ignore it in favor of the low number which was a Redstater's estimate.  I don't really know but I would be willing to guess that most of that 150,000 would also repudiate ANSWER et al.  

Amos has asked in several threads for credible answers to his questions, and so far no one has stepped up to the plate.

We've almost converted you, and it will require American support and involvement well beyond Bush's presidency, but you're missing a few things:

Why don't you think Saddam was a bad man?  Maybe you thought, like Lewis Lapham did, that the best thing for him would have been to fall into an open manhole in Baghdad, so we wouldn't have had to do anything?  That would have happened somewhere after 2030, after he had fought the Persians and bombed the Jews into nonexistence.

Perhaps you believe that we could have arranged a coup to remove Saddam from his post as the Supreme Leader in Iraq without military intervention or causing a major disruption in the mideast?  Yes, yes, that's exactly what would have happened -- Saddam would have just gone quietly into the waters with a little splash to follow his slipstream and we never would have had to worry about it militarily.  Right?  What about Uday and Qusay?  I'm sure those two boys wanted to preserve their dad's regime.  And you know, it would have been very lucrative for German construction companies.  Those companies aren't war profiteers, I suppose, are they?  Building Baghdad while Saddam was gassing the Kurds.  

I suppose it takes a very sophisticated state of mind to realize that actually France and Germany were quite interested in a civilized Iraq, as long as their companies got paid, yes?

Why isn't a change in the political culture in the Middle East a good thing?  Would you support more autocratic regimes?  Do you think that Saddam's regime represented a model of good governance, or that Israel's, especially, is one of the worst in the Mideast?

What concrete goals would you propose?  I think that actually our promises, while not completely met in Iraq yet, have been very encouraging.  In the runup to the war we were listening to people at Northwestern University on NPR who were forecasting hundreds of thousands of dead -- just on the American side.  Those people are never taken to account for their obviously biased views, so why do you think that 1,900 American lives is too much to sacrifice for regional stability in the Middle East?  Let's talk realpolitik here, Amos, not lefty-politik.  

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/9/25/75246/3003/85#85]

We really will never know what poll respondents thought the question meant, but let's keep in mind that they were paying far less attention to the wording of the question than any of us here.

Also, the poll was conducted at about the same time the 9/11 Comission report was released, so discussion about whether or not the Bush administration "did enough" were in the air.  This seems much more likely to be what people were responding to than some sort of accusation that the Bush administration somehow engineered the attacks or co-operated with terrorists.

I live in New York City and know a lot of people who dislike Bush, but haven't met a single one of them that believes that Bush was somehow "behind" 9/11.  The idea that nearly half of the people here have such a belief seems far off the mark to me.

one by one.

thatBush should give regular oval office war report/fireside chat adreses to the nation and respond more often to lib criticism.

Heck i call Bush the mute president. And while this past week and a lot of time, he has made the case well. But i just think he's not very good in q and a unless he takes off the gloves and gets down home blunt. plus i just think he's a CEO type.

But i agree with that it would be much better if he spoke more and his aides did as well.

BUT, and a BIG but, i doubt the msm would cover regular addresses and i also susopect that no matter what, the msm will do all it can to attack the pres even more and will always run polls with questions artfully asked to make theoir case.

and they will lie.

Honestly i don;t believ that a majority fvaors a pull out before victory

and the reasson is that he was re-elected after the most constant negative barrage when things really were at theior worst in iraq

i thnk we get it

Plus, no mattewr the polls,, bush has three years

the GOP will not no matter what deny funds

and i am confident that in 3 years and less even the msm won't be able to fool anyone kind of like the purple fingers

being able to predict the time and cost required to achieve victory is irrelevant since the enemy will not surrender just because dems would choose not to fight or would surrender if unknowable hypotheticals can't be predicted. War is no game where the opposition party shouts gotcha if predications aren't made or met. And in this war, no predictions were made and Bush said the war wouild last many years and probaly decades.

We have aleady won the major battle in iraq to remove the safe haven, and terror supporter and funder or terrorists and made sure that the ceasefire demand tnat iraq get rid of its wmd and have made sure potential enemies understand that clitoin paper tigers no longer have powr and that whewe say comply with a ceasefore we meanit.

We can have a major draw down in iraq when the iraqi forces are capable of securing the country and abkle to make sure the remaining terrorists can't remove them.

But the war on terror will best be fought with us jhabing a large contingent in iraq for many years as we did in germay/

ar this link.

Sorry, but RS can't take credit for a conversion experience on my part.  Mainly because there was no conversion experience.

I'll address your points here.  Then I'll restate my point which you seem to have missed more or less entirely.

Then I will shake the dust off of my sandals as regards this particular issue.  I have to get a UI prototype finished tonight.

Saddam was a very bad guy.  There are a long list of reasons why a military intervention in Iraq was legal and desirable.  That has been my considered opinion since long before we went into Iraq.

My objection to going into Iraq in '03 was that we had other, much more urgent fish to fry.  Still do.  Beginning and end of story.  I have a medium size rasher of other issues relating to how the case for the war was made, but I have no interest in revisiting that topic.  We're there.

I don't give a single rancid fewmet for the positions of France and Germany on the matter.  And, not for nothing, but I think Americans would do well to not point fingers regarding commercial involvement with Hussein.  We have our own house to clean on that count.

A change in the political culture of the middle east would be splendid.  However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, IMO addressing the imminent threat presented by Al Qaeda by taking on the (at least) generational task of reforming the middle east, particularly through primarily military means, is the long, long, long, long, long way around the block.

I offer all of the above for your information, since you asked.  I'm not interested in debating them, and will not respond to posts on the topic.

I don't propose any concrete goals.  That's not my job.  The concrete answers I seek are:

What is the outcome we are seeking in Iraq?

How will we bring that about?

How long will it take?

How much will it cost?

How will we know when we've achieved it?

Why will that goal have been worth the cost to our country?

In short, what does success look like, and how do we get there from here.  It's a pretty simple question.

And, in fact, I'm already in for staying until a positive outcome is achieved.  I'm not the one you have to convince.  Dig?

To return to my point:

You can waste your time gawking at the funny protesters and thereby convince yourself that those are the sum of the folks who lack confidence in our efforts in Iraq.  Or, you can take very seriously the very real questions that ordinary people like you and me have about our goals and progress there.  I recommend the second path.

As a final comment, I will ask you to carefully read and consider what I said above:

It's no longer about the goodness of the vision.  It's about the credibility of, and confidence in, the President and his ability to make that vision happen.

And with that, I'm done on this thread.

Good night.

Thanks for actually making (and pointing to) an answer.

Leaving aside the partisan barbs sprinkled throughout, I'll make a couple of comments:

being able to predict the time and cost required to achieve victory is irrelevant

Sorry, wrong answer.  You'd do better to say "it may take 25 years" if that's what it might take.  Telling folks their question is irrelevant is exactly the way you will get them to hang up the phone, pronto.

We have aleady won the major battle in iraq to remove the safe haven

Sorry, wrong answer.  The level of terrorist, and specifically Al Qaeda, presence in Iraq now as compared to pre-war is off the charts.  Jihadis can't wait to get to Iraq now, it's their number one training ground.  They love it there.

Pre-emptive reply to "flypaper" advocates: the presence of 10,000,000 jihadis in Iraq does nothing to prevent 100 from coming here.  100's all they need.

the ceasefire demand tnat iraq get rid of its wmd

Sorry, wrong answer.  As it turns out the WMD wasn't there.  Oops.  Not a compelling answer.

We can have a major draw down in iraq when the iraqi forces are capable of securing the country and abkle to make sure the remaining terrorists can't remove them

Sorry, wrong answer.  Of course we can have a major draw down when Iraqi forces can secure the country themselves.  How do we get there?  How long does it take?  How much does it cost?

I'm not making these replies to argue with you.  I'm trying to point out that the statements you've made are not congruent with obvious facts on the ground, and you have failed to give a substantive answer to any question I've asked.  It's not good enough.  Not for me, because I'm not the one you have to convince.  It's not good enough for the average well-informed person who is beginning to suspect that things are heading south, and is considering whether it's time to cut our losses.  We need a stronger case than this.

Thanks, sincerely, for at least trying to answer the questions.

What I'm saying is forget about the march.  At least, forget about ANSWER, Sheehan, et al.

What I'm pointing out is that if you look at the march, say "freak show!", and think that's all there is to the softening of support for Iraq in this country, you're missing the boat.

What I'm suggesting is that you pay serious attention to the folks who are not at the march, but who are beginning to believe that we're drifing in Iraq.

Thanks

speaking directly to me.  I was listening in, so to speak.  They were not my answers, just a set of answers.  I actually had the same problems with the answers that you did.  

BTW my very best friend in the world, a Republican whose son came home from Iraq a psychologically ruined person a few months ago told me just last week that just like Saddam sent his airplanes to Iran for safekeeping during the first gulf war, he sent his WMD's to Syria for the same reason just before we went in.  All his stalling was just to give him time and cover to get them spirited away secretly.

She is torn between her support for Bush and her anguish over her son.  She is one of those everyday Americans you mentioned that are looking for just the types of answers you asked for.  In view of her son's condition she is desperately seeking solid assurance and confidence that it was worth it.

Yes, I did realize that.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Regarding the smuggling of WMD into Syria, well I guess anything is possible.  It would be a more credible claim if some kind of evidence was presented.

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend's son.  I hope he's able to find some help, relief, peace, and wholeness.

to support the Syria hypothesis, it seems like we would have all heard about by now. Oh yeah it was done secretly.

. . . have been very forthcoming, I'm sure.

1. Bush did say many years and probably decades

   No one demanded that FDR predict the time or demand that we give it up and if they had he would have puffed smoke in their face and had the questioner returned to the asylum (joke bro)

2. Iraq is not SAFE for terrorists. In fact its to our advantage that terrorists come to Iraq to face the greatest military in the world, rather than us have to root them out all over the world.

The IRAQ BATTLE victory is the removal of the regime's threat as a nation state sponsor and safe haven. safe means not being hunted and killed.

THE WAR on terror goes on whevrever terrorists are. that they realize that a feee iraq is fatal to their cause and choose to take us on there ratehr than theyb all plot more harder to stop 911's is a sign of their desperation,much as the japanese kamikakees at iwo jima.

3. saddam was required under the cease fire to show us the wmd and allow us to destroy it or provide proof of where he destoyed it. Post 911 we could no longer wonder. The fact of our seriousness and will to go to war is why he got rid of it.
   
4. the case was string enough to win the approval of congress and the american people that re-elected bush.

Condescention doesn't become you my favorite expert on average americans.

You simply prove how ignorant we have become about what war is 60 years removed from any collective memory of how serious wars are won.

No serious american on dec 8, 1941 or dec 8, 1944 deem my arguments not good enough and demand that we give up if we couldn't answer such questions. No one knew in 1944 that wwii wouldn't last but another year. But there was no way we wouild have decided that we would go home and allow Hitler and Tojo to survive and keep power.

We will draw down when the mision is accomplished. We are and have been training the army and they are fighting major battles now and won two big ones recently.

maybe you are just uninformed or paranoid

but we respect the search for truth evenif you don't feel its hard smack up side yo head!!

  later

I am turning against torture thanks to you!!

haha

It's full of compulsively anti-American socialists under the sway of leftist state controlled media.

and/or let much of it degrade to wait the un  and us out and lied, even to his own people to retain the power that one has from possession of same and to deter iran.

plus, hhe had 18 months to prepare while we let colin powell play with the dcitator club in NYC.

The fact is saddam's 1989-2002 history and the 911 event demanded that we make certain he was not a threat, and the only way to make certain was to take him out.

We didn't find the 911 hijackers while they plotted here in the US for nealy thre years. But they were here.

had Bush trusted saddam and blix, he would ahve desereved impeachment.

I'll take a shot at answering them in a manner in which you and featherstone can (hopefully) appreciate.

1. Why are we in Iraq? We are in Iraq as a result of a Global War on Terror (GWOT) against terrorists in general (and Islamo-fascist terrorists in particular) and the states which harbor said terrorists and sponsor terrorism as a legitimate form of warfare.  We are in Iraq because the only realistic long-term strategy for removing the mullahcracies and autocracies which foment Islamo-fascist terrorism is the transplantation of democracry to the Middle East.  We are in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was in violation of 17 UN mandates, was a known sponsor of state terrorism, was known to possess WMDs, was suspected of trying to acquire/produce nuclear weapons, and was a dictator who maintained an irrational hatred of America so intense that he attempted to have a former US president assassinated and, in the opinion of many, was likely to seek similarly irrational ways to attack America including providing terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda with WMDs.
   
   
2. How long will [we] be there? I have no idea.  I suspect that we will maintain a presence in Iraq for quite some time, though our numbers should be drastically reduced no more than 5 years from now.  What you fail to realize is what many on this site take for granted: That we are in a civilizational struggle for survival, and in that type of struggle (unlike wars of convenience), timeline is irrelevant; you either emerge victorious, or you cease to exist.  
   
   
3. What will it cost us in lives and money? Again, irrelevant (see #2, above).  The GWOT will be the defining mission of the DoD for the next decade (perhaps longer).  The cost in lives and money will be the cost of maintaining our way of life.  The overwhelming majority of soldiers understand and appreciate this.
   
   
4. What will Iraq look like when we are done? It is hoped that Iraq will be the model for Middle Eastern democracy, one that can act as an example (dare I say a beacon) to the other states in the region, resulting in internal regime-changing reforms not requiring US intervention.
   
   
5. Why will that be worth our effort? Because our national security depends upon it.  Because we tried to play tit-for-tat in response to the first WTC attack, Khobar Towers, and the USS Cole, and that only brought us 9/11.  Because we will not be cowered into submission by a group of nihilistic thugs.
   
   
6. What is the outcome we are seeking in Iraq?  The outcome we have achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan is the freedom of 52 million human beings, an achievement, I might add, that would have been, in and of itself, more than sufficient for Democrats of the past were it not for the fact that a Republican is in the White House.  The outcome we are seeking is the stability of those two emerging democracies in the face of nihilistics attacks that, if allowed to prevail, would ultimately threaten our way of life once again.
   
   
7. How will we bring that about? We will achieve that stability by standing strong with those emerging democracies (who have no trouble identifying the "bad" guys and officially ask us not to prematurely "cut and run" on a routine basis) until they have the ability to defend themselves against their nihilistic elements.
   
   
8. How long will it take? See Answer #2, above.
   
   
9. How much will it cost? See Answer #3, above.
   
   
10. How will we know when we've achieved it?  We'll know we've achieved it when the Iraqi security forces (police and national guard) are able to assume the responsibility for large-scale operations without significant support from the US military.
    
    
11. Why will that goal have been worth the cost to our country? See Answer #5, above.

I, too, wish the President would make this case more often and more forcefully, despite MSM hostility.  Unfortunately, he just isn't that good in front of the mike.  However, given the choice between a glib speaker of dubious convictions, and a morally-centered leader of limited verbal skills, I'll take the latter any day of the week.  At least you can count on him to do the right thing, even if he ain't the best at explaining why.

This isn't the point.  You're wasting your time arguing with me concerning the issues you're raising, because I already think we should stay in Iraq until we achieve success.

For clarity, what I mean by "concrete answers" to the questions I laid out above are answers that are specific, realistic, and measurable.  "When we achieve victory" is not a concrete answer, because it leaves open the question of what victory is.

Hussein was a bad man.  We defeated him.  There is a constitution, and a rudimentary government.  We've avoided open civil war so far.  That's all good, and everyone understands that.  Nor am I minimizing that.  What it leaves unanswered is how we move forward from here.

We're still in Iraq, and will be for the forseeable future, because the country is fundamentally insecure and unstable.  There is a substantial and well organized indigenous insurgency, and there is what appears to be a nearly endless flow of extranational jihadis.

Everyone knows that we will be able to leave when the security situation improves.  What is the plan for making Iraq secure?  How many Iraqi forces will be required?  How many are in place now?  How many can we train in a year?  How many years will it take to build a competent indigenous security force?

Everyone knows it will take a long time.  At this point, that is blindingly, glaringly obvious.  Where will the human and financial resources come from to support that.  How many people will we need?  Will other countries help?  Will we need a draft?  Will we expand the volunteer army?  Will the guard continue to be needed at the rate they are now?  If so, what will happen to their families?  How will we backfill for the roles played by guardsmen when they are not overseas?

Will it continue to cost $5 billion a month?  Will it cost more, or less, as things proceed?  Where will the money come from?  Do we need to make adjustments to other things to pay for it?  What things?

Those are concrete questions that are not being answered.  "We are in Iraq because Hussein is a bad man" is not the kind of answer that creates the kind of confidence I'm talking about.  The people I'm talking about aren't suspicious of Bush because he thinks we're doing bad things.  The people I'm talking about are suspicious of Bush because they are losing confidence in his competence.  They are worried that we are adrift, that we are not going to achieve the goals we set ourselves, and that through incompetence the end result will be no better that what we started with.

The kind of answer those people need is "We are in Iraq because the security situation there is still unstable.  It will take  an indigenous security force of 200,000 Iraqis to replace the use of US forces.  It will take five years to build that force, during which time 100,000 Americans will need to stay in country.  That will cost us $4.5 billion/month.  To allow national guard forces to return home, we will expand the size of the active duty army by 50,000 troops.  To do this, we will provide incentives x, y, and z".  You get the picture.

Those answers, although quite prosaic, are extremely important because they address people's need to know what is expected of them, and what they can expect in turn.  Those answers have not been forthcoming.  "Shut up and trust me" doesn't cut it.

The question people I'm talking about have is less "why did we go there" than "what the hell are we doing now that we are there".  There are also real and lingering questions about "why did we go there" but realistic answers about what the hell our plan is going forward would go a long way toward making them less acute.

Average folks will cut Bush a lot of slack if they feel like he knows what the hell he is doing.  They're starting to not feel that way.  If they continue to not feel that way, they won't trust him to do the big things.  We'll fail.  It's no small matter.

Bush needs to answer the concrete, specific, and reasonable concerns of the American people concerning our continued involvement in Iraq.  If he does not, he will lose the support of the core of the country, and we'll be in very, very, very deep trouble.

I hope this makes my point a little clearer.

Thanks -

Rumor is some of you guys here on RS are connected to Republican policy making channels.  Please do me a favor and give them a freaking clue.  The wheels aren't coming off yet, but you can see it from here.

Thanks.

I tried to make that point as clearly as I could already. For it, I got called a chickenhawk and a shill for the Bush administration. I don't know what else to say, at this point.

My point just then was that the larger portion of the American population has just stopped paying attention, dug their heels in whichever trench feels more comfortable to them, and started throwing mustard gas.

What this means is that the folks not in the trenches have suffered for it, and they're expressing that now. Notice, it's not just Bush's numbers on the downswing, it's also Congress (Democrat and Republican alike) whose numbers are wallowing at generational lows, along with the SCOTUS, and the majority of governorships. The people are sick of the government, most especially the one in Washington.

If the Republicans can't find a successful "outsider" for 2008, I think they're doomed. Unless the Donks pick an "insider", too, in which case I think we see a return to the turnout levels of 2000, which isn't good for anybody.

answer delivery? And when they are delivered you can show them to that American people guy you know so well. Is he any kin to that American People that re-elected Bush last Novemeber that read these answers on paper and heard them on tape or saw them given on tv? Oh, your american people must live in bedrock!!! ok I understand

Send me the link to your long discourse outlining your hawkish bona fides and then

get a grip and quit panicking about this american people the msm describes. hell if you're right and...just whta is it that you think will happen before jan 2009 to force bush to pull out???

But if we do pull out and the jihadists take over, at leadt we'll know its all Bush's fault for not inviting the american people into the war room and playing kreskin.

cause heck, the constitution says that's his job and bith lincoln and fdr did that

hahahahha

enjoyed

Here and elsewhere, I've dealt with you in good faith.  I think the most cursory reading of anything I've posted here or elsewhere would make it clear that your comment here is more or less pointless.  I'm not offended, I'm just sort of at a loss.

If you can't think of something constructive to say, why bother?

I've stayed out of this thread for several reasons, and it's been hard.  Thanks for echoing my sentiments.

I wish I could persuade hubby to post on here as he has very definite answers to these questions, but, alas, I can not.  In his words, "I've got a job to do and not enough time in a day to try to make the average American come close to undestanding the reality that is Iraq."

Wow, just wow!

"What will it cost us in lives and money? Again, irrelevant (see #2, above).  The GWOT will be the defining mission of the DoD for the next decade (perhaps longer).  The cost in lives and money will be the cost of maintaining our way of life.  The overwhelming majority of soldiers understand and appreciate this."

Amen and amen.  To do any less would be a disservice to all that have served and are serving now.

I understand the point you are trying to make: don't focus on the kooks in the march because they don't represent the sizeable group of Americans concerned about how the war is being conducted.  On that point, I partially agree with you -- conservatives should take other Americans' concerns seriously and not delude themselves into believing this sentiment is represented only by fringe elements.  That being stated, I believe you miss something fundamental as well: until the Left and the Democrats find better standardbearers for the anti-war movement, a majority of Americans will never support it -- it's too extreme.  And therein lies the rub: one cannot dismiss the fringe elements when they are the face of the anti-war movement.  Call it marketing, if you will, but until the anti-war movemen gains some credibility by dumping the kooks at the front of it, it will never prevail at the ballot box.  

Cindy Sheehan in the conference call with reporters said that Osama bin Laden "allegedly" was responsible for 9/11. There is/was a PDF file of the whole telecon at the Kansas City Star, sorry I'm too lazy but I assume you can google this as well.

As for Howard, he was on MTP or some other show (I think it was MTP with Russert) where he said it was an "interesting theory" that Bush allowed 9/11 to proceed. Again I'm just too lazy to google for you. It is however a fairly infamous moment for howlin Howie.

Howard panders to the loons and Cindy Sheehan is one.

Amos is right insofar as it shouldn't BE your husband's job to explain it to all of us. It should be the President's.

Has decided that by removing Bush by whatever means neccessary, we can return to the long national naptime known as the 90's.

The Ostrich strategy. Pretend and look away from the problem.

Sigh.

Bush doesn't even bother to respond because he knows the Media simply hates him. Purely, on a basis of person and policy. They will ALWAYS do whatever is needed to make him look bad in the sincere belief it is their patriotic "duty" to oppose evil Chimpy McHitler Bushco, with themselves as Edward R Murrow.

Of course Bush internally acknowledges mistakes. But in the hostile media environment, there is simply no upside to making frequent press appearances. Flipside is Clinton. A guy who everyone knew was screwing around kept it quiet until outed by Drudge.

I think he has really tried.  Unfortunately, there are those that will not listen and will twist his words to serve their ends.

I strongly questioned the decision to go into Iraq.  I, too, wondered if we should have let the inspections go longer.  It didn't take me long to figure it all out though.  The only way I was able to figure it out was to listen with an open mind.  I dare say, there are those who want answers that simply refuse to listen to that they don't want to hear.

As for when will it end?  Not soon enough for me, but not before the job is done.  And others have expressed that far more eloquently than me.

Hey Amos

More on view from van joke below....

I love you bro and enjoyed the exercise in thick skull penetration. joke alert

But seriously man, apparently your definitions of what are clear, concrete answers escapes me or your ability to see clearly is impaired.

I would like to see your detailed essay you said you had posted and would send to me that makes clear your support for the war. And I pray that you will either see that your paranoia about a supposededly grave disconnect between Bush and the Voters that could force us out before the Iraqis can secure their country is misplaced or that you become more satisfied in the near future lest you worry yourself sick.

And if this was all a practical joke exercise akin to the Oliver North interrogation technique of asking the same question over and over in search of a gotcha, different answer moment, or just out and out sadism on your part, well i'm no worse for the wear. I love debate for its own sake to help me sharpen my understanding and arguments and if you really are sincere, then i am confident that you will won day understand the truth and wisdom of mine and other's posts. Time may have to be the teacher as you see that Bush will not be moved and the GOP will not try to move him to withdraw prematurely.

As to the post you thought not to be constructive,

Humor can be very constructive. Sorry you didn't get the joke or appreciate it. let's go slow.

you said:

"The wheels aren't coming off yet, but you can see it from here."

and i said

where are you, cindy;s van?

get it?

the view from a venue with wheels which convinces you that the american people are against bush

cindy's view? see?

laugh

see

you feel better now

feeling better is constructive

be good man

had a good time

Hey gamecock -

To tell the truth, you crack me up.  Not as in I'm not taking you seriously, but as in it's impossible for me to take umbrage at someone who's having so much fun.

No worries, no hard feelings on this end.

Peace.

From NPR...

Caller: "Once we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 911 and not stonewalling?"

Howard Dean: "Yes there is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 911.

Diane Rehm: "Why do you think he is suppressing that report?

Howard Dean: "I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually, they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission."

In your original post, you said Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan and others have stated that they don't "know" that Osama was responsible for 9/11 for certain. Howard Dean even speculated that Bush may have "allowed" 9/11 to happen as an "inside job."

Sadly, the assertions about Dean are entirely unsupported by your "infamous" moment.  The words "allowed" and "inside job" don't appear anywhere in Dean's comments.  In fact, to the extent that he is asserting anything beyond the fact that the administration should turn over more information to the 9/11 comission, he is using a technique made popular by the Bush administration--say nothing that is not factual but convey something sinister in the overall tone of the message.  I can't say I admire Dean for taking the approach, but, given the Bush administration's success with the tactic, I don't exactly blame him either.

This  comic strip about the protests and Peter's complaints about how they were coopted by extremists seems appropriate for this discussion.

I'm sure the majority of the protesters yesterday felt the same way. They wanted to show up in large numbers to get the point across but hated the fact they were marching with the commies and America-Last people.