I knew the time would come. The numbers are dropping fast!
There are many snippets and numbers from the poll I could post but I like this one…
This drop is in one month. We have 16 months until the election.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/30/sprj.irq.iraq.poll/index.html
Don’t kid yourself.
How many people will be convinced that they were misled?
Think about it.
Uh, according to the poll, that would be 37 percent, Simon.
That 37 percent isn’t too far from the people who opposed the war in the first place.
The administration should be given some time though. Even though I was anti-war, I hardly had any faith in Saddam either. I’ve become increasingly skeptical, but I haven’t been able to rule out large caches of post sanctions WMD yet. Each passing month should increase my skepticism. After about 3 more, I think I’m probably going to pronounce judgement.
I’m not sure why I’m giving the administration the benefit of a doubt, they’ve been shown to be either incompetent or deceitful in various instances so far. I basically feel like they’ve tried to manipulate me if not outright lie, but whether or not everything they contended was false, remains to be seen.
:smack:
Maybe my view is skewed. I find it very hard to believe that Americans en masse will care enough long enough to make any difference.
This being an election year has all but stifled politicians in regards to this. The Repubs don’t want to stir up anything for fear that they may be tainted with the Bush scandal and the Dems are afraid of being labelled unpatriotic. So instead of investigations into the affair, we have “reviews.” Closed door ones at that.
I spit on closed door reviews of potential high crimes- pteh!
Furthermore, Bush has the ability to have potential evidence against his admin classified. He’s already had previously public items decalred classified re 9-11. The fox is guarding his own henhouse.
IF the Bush Admin engaged in deliberate and/or irresponsible misrepresentations to sell an unecessary war AND they are made to pay for it by other politicians I’ll buy champagne and throw a party.
How silly of me to think that this could have been an actual debate instead of just one more news flash from our premier Bush basher.
Um, SimonX, since when is 2003 an election year?
SimonX:
I seem to remember another President who tried that. It didn’t work for Nixon.
Much is going to depend on how many of the Republicans will want to distance themselves from a possible scandal and how long the “reviews” or investigations take.
But I am sickened by people like Anne Coulter who said that she doesn’t care if weapons are found or not. I can see someone justifying that if a new government in Iraq works. But I don’t understand why people excuse the misinformation or lies we have been fed. If no WMD are found, either the Bush Administration or our Intelligence organizations are busted. What would fighten me most is if that continues not to matter to people.
Well, campaigning has begun. I guess technically, it won’t be an election year until Nov 2003.
Would it be better if Bush came to the American people and just said “Hey this Sadam guys an Asshole lets oust his ass!” ?
I mean granted this kind of campaign would never make it through all the red tape. But I was just wondering how many people would feel better or worse if that was the impetus to begin with.
Myself, I think the ends justify the means.
I don’t think that anybody was for Hussein, (xpt Baathists etc.). So, I for one would’ve been more willing to get on baord a rational sounding program for his ouster for the sake of ousting him. Of course, this sort of a program wouldn’t’ve been pushed through on the Bush admin’s schedule. The hypothetical threat to the US was a necessary element of the discussion to accelerate the invasion.
That’s a pretty slippery slope your standing on.
They were deceived?gasp that’s a first! How dare a politician mislead the public!thats a dangerous precedent.
On a serious note, i was reading something on slate the other day about how Bush and co. made up their minds that they were weapons,so they set out to find the evidence afterwards…strange i know. They genuinely believed the weapons were there, but probably manipulated the evidence to make their beliefs more likely to the public. Writer drew parallels with those who talked about the non-existent "missile gap"with the Soviets in the 50’s and 60’s and precipitated increased American defence expenditure. They too genuinely believed the Soviets were ahead in the game.
Perhaps it mightl become one if certain persons would offer a reasoned rebuttal, instead of a drive-by attempt at a slur. A rather weak attempt, considering that the position of “premier Bush basher” is so hotly contested.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe that Fearless Misleader is a mediocre human and a piss-poor leader. You disagree? You have reasons? Bring 'em on.
For those who need “cites” for the lies, here is one containing 10 of them.
Can I be “Vice Chancellor Bush Basher”? How about “Bush Basher Pro Tempore”?
Rebutt what? That the poll numbers went from 31 to 37 in one month? That we have 16 months till the next election?
Well, that last item is technically incorrect since it’s not exactly 16 months. And think about the excitement-- the debate will change every day!
I guess I missed the part in the OP about Bush being a “mediocre human being”. Is that just supposed to be implicit everytime Reeder posts yet another Bush bashing thread?
You demonstrate with every post, John Mace, that your debating and comprehension skills are poor.
You’ve made it clear that Bush won’t get your vote, elucidator. But, the topic here is the entire American population.
I continue to believe that harping on the jusitfication for the war with Iraq is bad electoral strategy. The voting public looks forward. They care about what a candidate will do for them, rather than what has he done for them.
Furthermore it will be impossible to convince a majority of Americans that removing Saddam was bad. He and OBL are the personifications of evil.
We all like to be right. That’s why those who opposed the war feel good about criticizing its outcome. They have the pleasure of saying, “I told you so.” However, for the same reason, those who supported the war want to believe that it was successful. You won’t be able to change their minds. The pro-war group is larger than the anti-war group.
Yeah, we’re all positively dancing around for joy of the international geopolitical theatre becoming unstable, and a rogue administration trying to declare itself biggest bully in the playground.
Spun december:
I rather suspect that the voting public cares somewhat about what a candidate has done to them. This, along with a plethora of other issues, may well add up in the long run.
I do however agree that harping on the justification for the war is a very bad electoral strategy. When confronted by an incumbent administration from a party with a 127-year tradition of election theft, which has demonstrably shown that it is willing to manipulate, misrepresent, and even lie to the public in order to pursue an agenda it is unwilling to sell directly, it would be utter folly to trust them to be honest about what they find and when.
They don’t care about giving honest information to the public, but they very much do care about winning the next election. That suggests to me that there is a very good chance that the WMDs will be found, at a time most convenient to Bush’s election campaign, whether they exist or not.