« We Agree to Boogie with Iran | Main | How They're Using Terrorism as an Excuse to Dismantle the Nation-State »

March 17, 2006


support for a war is not a "political angle" to be "played"

if Chelsea was driving an Army supply truck in Baghdad, Hillary might understand that

support for a war is not a "political angle" to be "played"

Hmm, y'might wanna let Karl Rove know that.

And by the way, supporting the troops does not mean supporting the war. The administration has cleverly confused the two -- and you as well, apparently. But Bush's idiotic policies can't hide behind the soldiers for much longer.

Finally, a majority of the country has figured out Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11.

When does the real furor that they've been lied to start?

The numbers that beoeve Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and the numberss about WMD tell you something about why Bush's numbers aren't lower.

Yeah, and maybe if the Bush twins were driving a supply truck in Baghdad, you think their pigheaded father might for once admit HE WAS WRONG, that he's sacrificing young lives FOR NO GOOD REASON? But of course Bush and his wealthy donors don't have to worry -- their kids won't be fighting his pre-emptive wars.

Today the Rassmussen poll has Bush approval at 41%. I believe that is the lowest I can remember that from Rassmussen. He is usually at least five points higher than any other poll.

One thing that has impressed me this week is the feature news casting doubt on the intention behind the Airborne Operations. Virtually every report I've seen questions whether this is PR to show off that "Grand New Iraqi Army" we've been training -- and actually questions the military purpose behind the action. For both MSNBC and CNN to suggest it is PR is a mighty change from months back.

But I would agree -- if the lack of any pre-911 connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda can be made clear, and I would add if the human and financial costs of being bogged down in Iraq could be made clear -- Bush's scores on Bush's Iraqi War would drop even further.

I am much more concerned that Bush still tends to score high on WOT and Homeland Security. I am thinking about how folk running next fall will need to pick up on these topics, because they are something a majority in Congress could address -- and I believe we need to work at the persuasion needed to drive down those numbers into the mid 20's.

The war was completely unethical. It is hard to believe people vote for these idiots! Our current administration is leading our country to ultimate failure, and is inciting a nuclear war with the way we’ve been ignoring the threat of Iran.

This adminstration should be held responsible in its entirety.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad