You’ve got to be kidding! I never imagined you were so naive, Sam. Or perhaps you’re not and you’re just eager to keep spouting the party line.
Only the word will change (and then only for some). They will stop attacking the “occupiers” and start attacking the “American puppets”. Hell, Sam, they’ve already been killing Iraqi police officers for some time now!
annaplurabelle:
No, the ones with no brains will vote for Buchanan in 2004…and say they thought they were voting for Kerrey but couldn’t figure out the arrows on the ballot.
Otherwise, you’re sticking with the guy who got us into it. Uh, huh… Yeah… That’ll be a good idea…
This is really bizarre reasoning. Assuming Kerry’s plan is incomplete (which I don’t agree with), you’re saying that (A) Bush made a huge mistake, (B) Kerry doesn’t have a magic plan to make Bush’s problem instantly go away, and so © you will therefore vote for Bush, the guy who caused the problem in the first place. It’s like if the schoolyard bully is punching you in the face, and the teacher says, “Well, I’m not going to stop him unless you have a more detailed proposal to get rid of those bruises on your face.”
If nothing else, voting Bush out will at least ensure we don’t get into any more intractable situations.
Besides which, getting the UN involved is a VERY LARGE policy shift, one that Bush’s “we’re always right” administration is unwilling to effect. Bush wants to control every facet of the situation, but how is that helping our country?
See post 77 for why I think Bush has betrayed the party.
I’m tired of Dubyacrats telling me I’m not a true Republican if I don’t support the frat-boy-in-chief (y’all haven’t, but I get that a lot). I already get enough crap for enjoying punk rock, supporting gay rights (less regulation is better), and promoting taxation of churches (give unto Caesar). Now I have to put up with the notion that loyalty = accepting clearly inferior candidates.
The icing on the cake is how easy this idjit has made it for lefties to attack the GOP. We can do better! We must do better!
In the meantime, chew on this…
Scenario: Hiking in the mountains. Your leader has managed to get you lost and use up all your supplies. Turns out, he actually doesn’t have the mountainering experience he claimed to have. And well, you always knew he only had experience hiking in one local area, not the place you’re hiking in, although boy his father sure was a good mountaineer. (Granted, he often did the opposite of what this fellow is doing.) The other leaders agree with him. But then, he’s managed to estrange nearly everyone who doesn’t automatically agree with whatever he decides to do. If he makes a mistake, he refuses to back down, claiming “I won’t negotiate with myself”. Someone else steps forward who has experience in this type of terrain*, says, “We sure are lost, and it may take some time to get us back on track, but at least I admit we’re lost”. Do you say, “Well, I think we’ll stick with what we’ve got”?
I sure don’t.
I have the guts to vote against my party when my party is wrong. If I do not, then I become a tool of my party, and that’s not a position I relish. But then, I’m more focused on local politics anyway.
As a purely trivial example (please no one throw it at me as if I’m equating the two), when my local PBS station starts playing bs like a “medical intuitive” or Wayne Dyer or Depak Chopra, or cultural drek like Riverdance, I stop sending them checks and I tell them why. When my party floats a seemingly electible candidate who nevertheless can’t make a politically pragmatic decision to save his life and who doesn’t even know that Wales is a country, and who withdraws from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in his first months (don’t tell me he didn’t – I saw it happen) while cooking up schemes to divide up Iraq, I retain my right to vote as I please until the leadership wakes the f–k up.
But as I said above, the kicker was when GWB blatantly lied to the public. He’s no better than Clinton. And isn’t as good a politician. Very sad, but true.
StD
*By terrain, I’m not referring to Iraq, although Kerry’s military record, though brief and obviously embellished, is evidently superior to W’s. I’m referring to the federal political system. To hell with this outside-the-beltway nonsense. Give me a man who knows the system.
Sam:
Hiya, Sam! Remember me?
First off, I just want to address something you posted on page 2, (post # 97), that seems to have slipped through the net:
Now, if Woodward’s claim is true, consider some of the statements Tenet made at Georgetown University on Feb. 5, 2004, for comparison:
One of these pictures is not like the other, Sam. Either Woodward is lying in his book, or Tenet is lying in his speech. And after all of our debates on and around this issue, I find it frustrating that you still insist that the pre-war intelligence was rock solid. You’ve previously stated that if it was discovered that the US public had been mislead in any way, then “heads should roll.” I want to once again point out that Bush has done apparently nothing in the way of investigating this failure, and that no heads have rolled at all.
Do you not think that a US president should be held accountable for his statements and actions?
Anyway, moving on:
Yeah, I’m not surprised. But you don’t have to take the polar extreme of your position to be the only standard against which to argue. So let us get down to brass tacks, and discuss the problems that the US occupation is really facing, rather than the talking points you’ve stolen from the monkey fist collective or the Independent Media Center. I welcome your invitation to debate “the basic facts,” but would like to point out that every one of your assertions, above, are oversimplifications of very complex issues.
Regarding point 1), that the current problems in Iraq constitute a “popular uprising;” no. The fear is that they can morph into a popular uprising, if the CPA mishandles the situation. (And given the CPA’s history thus far, I consider this fear to be well-grounded. Even you admit that the CPA has been making serious mistakes.) Experts are warning that a hard-handed approach to the stalemate in Fallujah or Najaf will provoke a backlash, and serve to legitimate what appears to be a nascent uprising among a large swath of poor, disenfranchised, and marginalized Iraqis. However, al-Sadr did have a larger base of support than occupation forces believed prior to the uprising. It is possible that his base of support was even larger than indigenous opponents, like Sistani, reckoned. Juan Cole estimates that between 30% and 50% of Iraq’s Shiite community are followers of al-Sadr.
The debate about the nature of the insurgency, really, has centered on its origins. That’s a question about which experts (and other commentators) were originally divided. Some, especially those on the right, argued that the average Iraqi supported the invasion, and that the insurgency was basically foreign-based; that “terrorists,” al-Qaida agitators and so forth, combined with the rump end of the Sunni Baathist resistance, were the real source of the problems. Others, especially those on the left, argued that the insurgency was primarily indigenous (i.e., a “popular” resistance movement). Prior to the latest uprising, I suspect it was a bit of both, although I have a hard time believing that, at least in some areas, the insurgents didn’t enjoy a fairly broad network of indigenous support. Now it seems clear that the latest troubles find their basis primarily within the local population, i.e., that they aren’t the result of al-Qaida influence. That’s why analysts are employing the words “popular uprising.”
There are good reasons to be alarmed at the potential of such a revolt, and of a “two-front” war in which Sunnis and Shiites combine forces to expel the occupation. That one sees the beginnings of such a revolt in the events of the last few weeks is in no sense unreasonable. What’s more, these are exactly the sorts of problems that opponents of the war warned of prior to the invasion. I’ll return to this point further down, but to summarize: you write, “Other polls have shown that Iraq does not want an Islamic government, and it does not want to break apart into three states. Iraqis want to stay together and build a future.” I won’t ask for a cite; I’m aware that Iraqi society is highly educated and “secularized,” compared to other regional actors. But the problem does not disappear just because a significant group – maybe even a majority – rejects an “Islamic government,” in whatever form it might take. The problem is what to do about that, say, 20% of the Shiite community that supports Muqtada al-Sadr fanatically, and that are willing to employ violence to enforce their vision of Iraq upon the rest. Or that sub-group of Kurds who desire full independence from Iraq and willingly pursue it with violent means. Or the conflict between the Arab majority and the Kurd minority over how to effectively divide power at the state level. And so on. All of these problems were foreseen prior to the invasion, but the administration chose to ignore them (as far as I can tell). They certainly weren’t debate extensively here, and when they were brought up, they were met with a resounding silence, simply because no one had any answers. That a majority of Iraqis reject an Islamic state doesn’t really address the underlying problem; in fact, it highlights it.
A lot of wind is being spent claiming that Kerry doesn’t have a vision for getting the US out of this mess, and that might very well be true. But let us also turn the question around and ask ourselves as well, what does Bush propose we do about things? Because really, he and his supporters have gotten the US into this mess, so it’s his (and their) responsibility to get the US out. As far as I can tell, his only solution is a largely symbolic hand-over of “sovereignty” on June 30. At this point, they don’t seem to even know to whom it will be handed. Excuse me if I find this strategy less than satisfactory.
Point 2), the claim that Iraq is “spiraling into civil war,” is a worry, not a statement of fact. Given the events of the last few weeks, and the increasing levels of violence (over 100 US lives lost thus far in April alone), it’s not unreasonable (although I concede that asserting it has happened is).
Regarding point 3), that “Americans are hated by almost all Iraqis,” I must admit I haven’t read that anywhere. I certainly don’t believe it myself, and I don’t think it represents the view of most of us who oppose the war. Do you have a cite, or are you simply “hearing what you want to hear?”
Finally, on point 4), that the invading forces “weren’t greeted as liberators,” it’s certainly not my impression that they were. In some parts of the country, like the Kurdish north, they were greeted that way; but this cannot come as surprise, so I wouldn’t waste time arguing about it with you. But in other areas of the country the greeting was considerably more ambivalent. As liberators, one might reasonably expect spontaneous demonstrations of support, flowers, parades, and so forth. One might reasonably expect as well a dearth of support for insurgency activities, yet they began almost immediately and have continued unabatedly since the end of “major combat operations.” Again, given the near-constant bombings and firefights, one can wonder what you mean with the phrase “greeted as liberators.”
Those who supported the war deployed this claim rhetorically as means of saying, “After all this is over, and Saddam is overthrown, thing will go well for us in Iraq. Since we will be seen as liberators, there will be no, or at least relatively few, post-war problems. We will have the support of the majority of Iraqis.” I haven’t seen this happening, myself, hence my skepticism. Obviously, the idea that we would be “greeted as liberators” would seem to imply that things would go smoothly after the invasion. They clearly have not, hence the oft posed rhetorical question, “I thought we were going to be greeted as liberators? What happened to that?”
I addressed this point above. While it is heartening information (cite, please?), it only highlights the problem; a significant portion of the Iraqi population demands a theocracy, and I wonder what you think should be done about them.
Not according to Juan Cole. The low estimate is 30%. But that can change, if he is perceived as being strong-willed enough to stand up to an unpopular and incompetent secular western occupation.
Given the mystical, millennial, fanatical nature of al-Sadr’s teachings, it is particularly worrisome to find that he has that much support. Cole suspects that al-Sadr suffers severe character pathology, and compares his following to the Branch Dravidians.
Well, you wish to deal with facts here. How many Iraqis are “a lot?” What evidence do you have for this assertion?
Undoubtedly true, but how much of the violence stems from those sources – and how much is a result of a “popular uprising?”
You go on to reply to annaplurabella’s cites of US unpopularity vis-a-vis the “Arab world” thusly:
And yet, while admitting here, above, that “putting pressure on dictatorships” is bound to make the US unpopular among them, you originally claimed:
So, which is it? Is the US building allies, or is it rightfully pissing off oppressive regional dictatorships?
Back shortly (I hope).
Sample the Dog:
Respect.
The Republicans who actually stand up against Bush’s lies and incompetence make the toughest choice of all. If Kerry becomes president, I fully intend to follow the example.
Sam:
Continuing: on the issue of US troops viewed as “liberators:”
All of this seems strange to me. You’re right; we don’t perceive the facts in the same way.
Some Iraqis did perceive the invasion as a liberation. As you’ve pointed out repeatedly, this was seen most strongly among the Kurds. But not all acted that way. Soldiers entering Basra, for example, were surprised by the lukewarm reception they met there. And in the chaotic looting of Baghdad there were few scenes of Iraqi people running after American soldiers shouting “Bush! Bush!” Rather, I mostly saw scenes of bitter lamentation over the fact that US forces were so poorly equipped to deal with the post-invasion chaos.
Finally, it seems strange to me that you would cite the decision of a US-appointed governing council to declare – is it March 17? – a national holiday as evidence for a broad-based public sentiment that the invasion was actually a liberation. The Iraqis did not come together as a nation and vote for that, did they? Is it wrong to suspect that this holiday reflects the view of the Governing Council, in its relation to the US, rather than the popular will of the Iraqi people?
On the contrary, I think that even to this day Iraqis reveal a deeply ambivalent attitude towards the invasion. I doubt it is possible to fully appreciate the average Iraqi’s view of the situation by casting it in the diametrical terms of “invasion/humiliation” or “liberation.” But it also depends by what you mean with the word “liberation.” In fact, as noted by the very cite you link, above:
So to my eye, your spin on the poll results seems to be more of an example of you “hearing what you want to hear,” rather than an honest reflection of the poll itself (at least on this point).
And a year ago you also thought that it was indisputable that Iraq possessed “WMDs.” Shouldn’t that miscalculation give you pause when you now so readily assert further generalizations about Iraq?
But we were going to address facts. You assert that a year ago, beyond dispute, the “people of Iraq” viewed Americans as “liberators.” Can you provide evidence that this was really the case?
I don’t know where you get this from. According to you own sources, support for the war is 87% among Kurds (Question: Was the US invasion right?), but less than half of that (40%) among Arabs. That seems much lower to me. So where do you get the assertion that support for the invasion is “not much lower in the southern Shiite areas?”
I don’t really know what you mean with the word “plurality.” The fact is, there is a near even split: 42% of Iraqs view the invasion as a “liberation,” and 41% view it as a “humiliation.” It is also worth noting that these figure weigh in the overwhelming Kurdish support for the invasion; and as jshore has already pointed out, if you look at the Arab population in isolation (approximately 80% of the total number of Iraqi citizens), you see that only 33% view the invasion as a liberation; by contrast, 48%, almost half, view it as a humiliation. And yet from these figures you claim that a “plurality” of Iraqis “STILL think the war was a war of liberation.” And you make this claim without any evidence, other than anecdotal, regarding Iraqi attitudes directly after the invasion; and at the same time, you eschew anecdotal evidence (at least, when it provides a basis for a view of things you disapprove of, apparently).
I must close for now. Hope to get back to the rest of your post when I get a spare moment.
Some of the more reasonable posts (I think Sam Stone… not sure) said something about Bush doing a somewhat bad job in Iraq and the economy… but that Kerry and the democrats wouldn’t do better from what he has seen.
Personally I think Bush is doing terribly in Iraq… and the results are pretty clear. The “liberated” are pissed… the UN is pissed… the coalition is dissolving and finally a LOT OF MONEY is being spent with little to show for it. Anyone can do a better job in Iraq than Bush. Kerry will probably get a somewhat “clean slate” from Arabs and Iraqis. They will be willing to see if something new might work. Bush has lost all respect outside the US.
As for the Economy… some wacko even said the deficit was Clinton’s doing !!! Jesus… can I say republican Porn ! Bush just says “stay the course”. Kerry at least will try something else… economically wise he will have a republican congress to hold back on splurging money.
I see even reasonable republicans dismissing Kerry for what he MIGHT do... and forgetting Bush's sins way to easily.To win Republican votes, I think Kerry will have to beat them at their own game.
My own Modest Proposal is that Kerry should promise to fight twice as many wars and kill twice as many people. It seems to be very popular with Republicans.
Bush has only managed a major conflict every other year. I think this could easily be improved upon.
Just make a list of dictators and go down it alphabetically. No justification is needed outside of liberation after all. The long term consequences are also unimportant. If the other democracies don’t like it, well that doesn’t matter either.
Promise to invade N. Korea and Iran within the first two years and he’s a shoe in.
As I said earlier RM, forget about Iraq, the UN, and everything else…except the economy. Bush’s fate rides on whether or not the economy is PERCEIVED to be doing well come election time. If it is…then Bush WILL be re-elected, reguardless of all that other stuff. If its not…then all that other stuff won’t really matter as he’ll be out anyway. No one will care if Kerry is promissing a ‘new way’ if the economy picks up (or is PERCEIVED to pick up), because ‘why change horses in mid-stream if the economy is doing well’?? And no one will care if Kerry is promissing a ‘new way’ if it doesn’t (or is PERCEIVED to NOT be picking up), as folks will be saying ‘its time for a change to get the economy going’.
Its not really that complicated. 40% of folks (I’m using a WAG here) will ALWAYS vote 'Pub, 40% will ALWAYS vote 'Crat…doesn’t really matter what their candidate does, what scandals happen, etc etc. The only votes in play are the 20% of independant, non-aligned types. And THEY really care most about how the economy is doing.
-XT
And who’s our ambassador to Iraq going to be? John Negroponte, a highly experienced diplomat whose only experience in this region is illegally selling arms to Iran while they were at war with Iraq! This is insane.
Sample_the_Dog, blowero and jshore
You are all missing the point. No one is saying that Bush’s “mistakes” are going to be held against Kerry if he wins. No one is saying that major policy shifts are necessary to save the nation but Kerry is not providing enough detail. Nor the bizarre contention that some people want to keep the perpetrator of said “mistakes”.
It is the Democrats who want to claim the the Bush administration has benn some sort of calamity. This assertion is disputed. The problem is that they have also not succeeded in providing a very clear idea what will be necessary to correct the problems they are harping on and on and on about. The point of all of this is that it makes the democratic claims (or at least their hyperbolic rhetoric) much less believable because they have no concrete suggestions for how to fix the problems.
Remember back to the 1992 campaign? When bush kept harping about character? Do any of you remember how he failed to make the case that character was all that important to the presidency?
This campaign feels similar to that. The Democrats are whining and harping about all these evil things, but they are unable (or unwilling) to place any serious suggestions for changing them on the table.
Iraq is a vietnam quagmire. We’ll put white helmets and UN insignias on our troops. (If the international community will let us)
The economy is in the crapper. We’ll create 10 million jobs (I always wondered why they didn’t go for a higher number).
Bush lied about pre Iraq intelligence. We promise not to do that. Really. Cross our fingers. (and it is believable because democrats would not stand for lying)
The problem as usual is that these responses might have the right sentiment (if you assume they are correct in their assesment in the first place). But they are somewhat short on specifics. You see, its not that anyone agrees with the assesment but is unwilling to change without concrete solutions. It is that the lack of concrete solutions makes the assesment somewhat suspect.
No, perv, you’re missing the point, at least in my case.
I’m not a Democrat, obviously (so I don’t care what the Democrats claim about Bush). But my only real choice is going to be between Bush and Kerry.
Bush’s sins are so eggregious that I’m actually willing to take a chance on a Kerry administration. W’s political method is so flawed at its core that his leadership is bound to be an impediment to rectifying our current situation.
The question is, what would GWB have to do to lose your vote? In my case, he would have to surround himself with yes-men/women, alienate pragmatic Republicans, leave good people like Whitman and Shinseki twisting in the wind, pursue ill-advised fiscal policy (imho in order to redeem his father from the crap he took after reversing his “no new taxes” stance), politicize all processes even to the point of interfering with the NBER (as well as another scheme to cook the Clinton-era budget books, one of the early red flags I was willing to brush off, but which I don’t have time to collect sites for at the moment – perhaps I’ll come back to it), then have his cabinet look me in the eye and lie (about military service, about his NSA testifying to the 9/11 Commission, about the administration’s claim that they never said Saddam was an imminent threat).
As I’ve said above, there are huge problems with Kerry. I am not pro-Kerry. But there are larger problems with Bush. So Bush loses my vote. It’s that simple. And no argument that “Well, Kerry’s plans aren’t specific enough for yet” is going to put W back on the good side of the balance.
PS: Maybe I’m reading this wrong…
… but if this refers to my statements, then all I have to say is “Huh?” People who wish to re-elect Bush desire to keep in office the perpetrator of the mistakes made by the Bush administration. Obviously. ::scratches head::
The thread question was “Bush Republicans…what does it take to give up on Bush ?” No “Bush Republican” is going to give up to the MA Left Wing Liberal Kerry or Socialist Nader. Why are so many non-Republicans responding to this thread? A little insecurity 
Oh sure, folks are not going to care all that much if our men and women in Iraq keep dying at the rate they are. Haven’t things been getting better since we declared victory? Who cares about instability in the middle east anyway?
xtisme, it isn’t going to be like 1992 this time around, it’ll be more like 1964.
Besides, if nothing else, the war is going to have a huge impact on the economy, sooner or later. With more tax cuts ahead for everyone, I expect sooner.
These are the issues that can push swing voters. Plus it may still be a long, hot summer ahead for the Bush administration, in a number of ways. It would probably be interesting to revisit this thread come September to see if there has been any change of heart regarding the OP at that time.
Mr. Svinlesha: I just spent 45 minutes typing a response to your mega-message, and the hamsters ate it. I’ll try to answer later on - I’m too annoyed right now to tackle it again. Rest assured, I haven’t forgotten about you.
I obviously totally disagree. While tragic, in cold numbers more folks die a year in automobile accidents in a large city than have died in Iraq so far. I just don’t see it as a major issue except for people who were already against Bush anyway. I think that the economy will be the key issue as I’ve already said.
Why?
Sure, it will have a huge inpact on the economy…sooner or later. If its sooner and the economy turns down, GW is out and Kerry is in. If its later, and the PERCEPTION is that the economy is going up, GW gets the nod and another 4 years.
Sure, there are other issues that may swing some voters besides the economy. However, that works both ways of course. However, I think the core issue IS the economy…thats the issue that will swing the most non-aligned one way or the other. I agree though…it will be interesting to re-visit this thread in September and see who, if anyone, is right. I’m content to wait and see. Its all academic to me anyway as I don’t like either Bush OR Kerry and won’t be voting for either of them.
-XT
So you don’t believe 9/11 was a major issue except for people who were already against Osama anyway?
This OP was for Bush Repulicans. Why RU posting to this thread ?
Just to speculate: the reason Bush Republicans still plan to vote for Bush in 2004 is because they voted for him in 2000, and to not vote for Bush again would be an admission that they were wrong to elect Bush in the first place. The self-esteem of these folks are so tied up in their need to be “right” that they’ll vote for Bush again, despite all the lies and screwups and excuses and everything else in the last four years.
All the other talk – about the merits of the Iraq war, about John Kerry’s “waffling”, yadda yadda yadda, are all justifications after-the-fact. Dig to the core of a Bush-backer, and you’ll find an insecure child who’s too scared to admit they voted for an idjit in 2000.
Just a theory, anyway. But it makes more sense than the “Why I still support Bush” excuses we keep hearing.